# Undue delay of marriage



## Stargazer65

I've been thinking about this for a while, but a recent CNN article brought it to my attention again: 

Why young Christians aren't waiting anymore – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Obviously there are various sins causing this trend, I could list many. But I highlighted a particular sin in Q139 of the larger catechism:



> Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,780 are, adultery, fornication,781 rape, incest,782 sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;783 all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;784 all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;785 wanton looks,786 impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;787 prohibiting of lawful,788 and dispensing with unlawful marriages;789 allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;790 entangling vows of single life,791 *undue delay of marriage*,792 having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;793 unjust divorce,794 or desertion;795 idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,796 unchaste company;797 lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;798 and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.799


Society as a whole seems to be moving in a direction that delays marriage for selfish reasons. But my real concern is that Christianity is following suit. Young Christian men are plodding along through college, dragging their feet, spending their years of singleness in endless pleasure seeking with no real goal in sight. Young ladies are left waiting forever with no suitors and end up pursuing single careers. I'm sure that premarital sex is a natural outcome of this trend.

Do you agree that undue delay of marriage is an increasing problem in the church? Why, or why not?


----------



## raekwon

My question would be what determines whether or not the delay is undue.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Yes I do. It fits in with the whole elongation of adolescence in our society. The age that we consider the beginning of adulthood as a society is getting older and older. 

My wife and I were engaged for 18 months and waited until she graduated from college to get married. Looking back we both agree that was not only a bad idea for us but it also served no good purpose.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

I was listening to some Christian radio station in the Delta the other day, and Al Mohler was qouted for the proposition that marriage is too often delayed among Christians.


----------



## Peairtach

Sometimes a person delays marriage because he has no-one to marry or because he thinks marriage would be unlikely or inappropriate in his reduced circumstances e.g. through ill health.


----------



## Stargazer65

raekwon said:


> My question would be what determines whether or not the delay is undue.



Good question. There is no exact time frame. It's more of an attitude towards when to get married that is a problem. If someone has a desire for marriage, then I believe they should pray about it, and prepare themselves for it. When a man and a woman who would be equally yoked are willing and able to be married, then they should not delay it for selfish pursuits.

My wife and I both fell into the modern societal trap of thinking that "the older the better." We regret the delay, it was for no good reason. Now as we approach the twilight of our child bearing years, we wonder what other children and blessings we could've had.

---------- Post added at 11:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:01 AM ----------




Peairtach said:


> Sometimes a person delays marriage because he has no-one to marry or because he thinks marriage would be unlikely or inappropriate in his reduced circumstances e.g. through ill health.



That would be a due delay then. That is not a sin according to the catechism. Of course, sometimes I think people have no-one to marry because people are not preparing themselves for marriage.


----------



## AThornquist

One problem is that young people today aren't nearly as likely to have the ability to be self-sustaining because of a lack of skills and foolish cultural pitfalls (i.e. loads of debt from college). But on the flip side, we also have such a high standard of living compared to the rest of the world that our "bare necessities" are better than living the good life in a third-world country, which means that marriage is often delayed until the couple can afford all the comforts they deem necessary. I'm against all that and consider them undue delays of marriage because of one poor choice or another.


----------



## JBaldwin

I've been pondering these very issues for a long time, especially since I have a daughter who is nearing marrying age. As mentioned, our society not only encourages young people to delay marriage and having children, but it also encourages young people to to delay taking on responsibility. The worst thing we can do for young men and women is to let them act like children until they are in their 20s. If young people don't learn to be responsible for caring for themselves, but have everything handed to them on a silver platter until they are 22 or 23, they are not going to be emotionally ready to handle marriage and children. 

A group of us was discussing this topic a few weeks ago, and we were reminded that years ago, when two responsible teenaged individuals wanted to marry and didn't have the means to start on their own, they would figure out a way to set up house on or near the family property so they could go ahead a marry and have at the very least the moral support of the family until they could be completely on their own. 

I know a few young couples who are doing just that, renting a few rooms from the family, renting a small apartment down the road from the parents, etc. and going ahead and getting married rather than waiting. I know of one young couple (this was years ago) who moved in with a grandmother who needed to be cared for, and paid rent and cared for the grandmother until she passed, and then bought the house. They still live there 31 years later. 

I wonder at times if the reason why so many marriages fail is because they don't have the family support needed to get the marriage off of the ground. When young people graduate from high school, go off to 4-6 years of college and move away from home, they don't have the same kind of family support as they might had they married earlier. 

This doesn't mean that this is the answer for everyone. I didn't marry until I was 31, because I didn't meet anyone I wanted to marry. Having said that, while I trust that God knew what He was doing with me when He kept me single all those years, having children at 35 and 40 was not ideal.


----------



## py3ak

If there are no prospects, you aren't delaying: you're being hindered (assuming the lack of prospects isn't due to wrong thinking).


----------



## smhbbag

> Young Christian men are plodding along through college, dragging their feet, spending their years of singleness in endless pleasure seeking with no real goal in sight. Young ladies are left waiting forever with no suitors and end up pursuing single careers. I'm sure that premarital sex is a natural outcome of this trend.



I actually think the causation goes the other way. Pre-marital sex isn't the natural outcome of young men being worthless. Widespread pre-marital sex makes men worthless. To get sex, you used to have to 'pay' in responsibility and commitment, which would preclude dragging your feet and aimless wandering in work and education.

When the price of sex goes down (because the available supply goes up), women lose. If a man can drag his feet, accomplish nothing, make no commitments, and have a roof, video games, food and sex....what do we expect him to do? In misguided human terms, that's a pretty good life. 

Of course, I speak from the cynical side of an unbeliever, but the analysis reveals something important. The sanctity of marriage, and the sex within it, channels the fleshly impulses of men toward productive things. When that is lost, you get men who know they can get all they want without doing anything for it.


----------



## JBaldwin

smhbbag said:


> Young Christian men are plodding along through college, dragging their feet, spending their years of singleness in endless pleasure seeking with no real goal in sight. Young ladies are left waiting forever with no suitors and end up pursuing single careers. I'm sure that premarital sex is a natural outcome of this trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think the causation goes the other way. Pre-marital sex isn't the natural outcome of young men being worthless. Widespread pre-marital sex makes men worthless. To get sex, you used to have to 'pay' in responsibility and commitment, which would preclude dragging your feet and aimless wandering in work and education.
> 
> When the price of sex goes down (because the available supply goes up), women lose. If a man can drag his feet, accomplish nothing, make no commitments, and have a roof, video games, food and sex....what do we expect him to do? In misguided human terms, that's a pretty good life.
> 
> Of course, I speak from the cynical side of an unbeliever, but the analysis reveals something important. The sanctity of marriage, and the sex within it, channels the fleshly impulses of men toward productive things. When that is lost, you get men who know they can get all they want without doing anything for it.
Click to expand...


Bingo!

It is something that frustrated when I was a young woman looking toward marriage. The men I knew (even some in christian circles) were not interested in making a commitment but wanted the pleasure of the relationship. Based on what my daughter and friends tell me, it's far worse now than it was when I was a teen.


----------



## Stargazer65

JBaldwin said:


> smhbbag said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Young Christian men are plodding along through college, dragging their feet, spending their years of singleness in endless pleasure seeking with no real goal in sight. Young ladies are left waiting forever with no suitors and end up pursuing single careers. I'm sure that premarital sex is a natural outcome of this trend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually think the causation goes the other way. Pre-marital sex isn't the natural outcome of young men being worthless. Widespread pre-marital sex makes men worthless. To get sex, you used to have to 'pay' in responsibility and commitment, which would preclude dragging your feet and aimless wandering in work and education.
> 
> When the price of sex goes down (because the available supply goes up), women lose. If a man can drag his feet, accomplish nothing, make no commitments, and have a roof, video games, food and sex....what do we expect him to do? In misguided human terms, that's a pretty good life.
> 
> Of course, I speak from the cynical side of an unbeliever, but the analysis reveals something important. The sanctity of marriage, and the sex within it, channels the fleshly impulses of men toward productive things. When that is lost, you get men who know they can get all they want without doing anything for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bingo!
> 
> It is something that frustrated when I was a young woman looking toward marriage. The men I knew (even some in christian circles) were not interested in making a commitment but wanted the pleasure of the relationship. Based on what my daughter and friends tell me, it's far worse now than it was when I was a teen.
Click to expand...


I think this is a valid point. It would probably cause an amazing transformation of the culture if all women everywhere would withhold all physical affection outside of marriage. But I also think it goes both ways, one is not strictly the cause of the other and vice versa, there is a synergistic effect going on.

In my peer group, we were not delaying marriage because of any pre-marital sex going on. We just bought into the societal norm of waiting until you were older because it was commonly accepted.


----------



## Weston Stoler

My big issue is I would like to be able to have a place for me and the wife to live. After that I will think about it. Till then I am single. I want to be able to faithfully take care of my wife and not wonder where we are gonna live the next day.


----------



## JoannaV

Weston Stoler said:


> My big issue is I would like to be able to have a place for me and the wife to live. After that I will think about it. Till then I am single. I want to be able to faithfully take care of my wife and not wonder where we are gonna live the next day.



Where do you live now?


----------



## Weston Stoler

With the parents. I am still 19 however I will be moving out soon.


----------



## elnwood

Where is "undue delay of marriage" addressed in the Bible?


----------



## JBaldwin

> I think this is a valid point. It would probably cause an amazing transformation of the culture if all women everywhere would withhold all physical affection outside of marriage. But I also think it goes both ways, one is not strictly the cause of the other and vice versa, there is a synergistic effect going on.
> 
> In my peer group, we were not delaying marriage because of any pre-marital sex going on. We just bought into the societal norm of waiting until you were older because it was commonly accepted.



In some christian circles this is the case. It has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, but waiting because "you're not old enough". When I think back on my family, it is surprising how many of my family members were married by age 20, and most of them before that. Most of the women (even those who had 5 and 6 children) were married at 18 or 19 and were finished having children at 28-30 years of age. Perhaps some of you remember being told that 35 was too old to have children?


----------



## Peairtach

*Don*


> Where is "undue delay of marriage" addressed in the Bible?





> 1 Corinthians 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband....





> 1 Corinthians 7:7-9. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.



This text is also cited in connection with the Larger Catechism Qs 138 and 139, although I'd have to study it to see its relevance:


> Genesis 38:26. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


----------



## Stargazer65

JBaldwin said:


> In some christian circles this is the case. It has nothing to do with pre-marital sex, but waiting because "you're not old enough". When I think back on my family, it is surprising how many of my family members were married by age 20, and most of them before that. Most of the women (even those who had 5 and 6 children) were married at 18 or 19 and were finished having children at 28-30 years of age. Perhaps some of you remember being told that 35 was too old to have children?


I was saved at 19. The first ministry I was involved in expected that you don't get married until 25. If you were younger, you needed to dedicate yourself to single ministry. This was not writen anywhere, just passed down by tradition.


----------



## Philip

Weston Stoler said:


> My big issue is I would like to be able to have a place for me and the wife to live. After that I will think about it. Till then I am single. I want to be able to faithfully take care of my wife and not wonder where we are gonna live the next day.



Do you have a young lady in mind? If you don't, then you shouldn't worry too hard about it. If you do, then start making those plans. Eventually you're going to move out anyway, even if you're still single: so don't let the circumstances stop you. There's a Godly young lady in your life? Go for it, and work out the details together.


----------



## Weston Stoler

P. F. Pugh said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My big issue is I would like to be able to have a place for me and the wife to live. After that I will think about it. Till then I am single. I want to be able to faithfully take care of my wife and not wonder where we are gonna live the next day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a young lady in mind? If you don't, then you shouldn't worry too hard about it. If you do, then start making those plans. Eventually you're going to move out anyway, even if you're still single: so don't let the circumstances stop you. There's a Godly young lady in your life? Go for it, and work out the details together.
Click to expand...


So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Weston Stoler said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> My big issue is I would like to be able to have a place for me and the wife to live. After that I will think about it. Till then I am single. I want to be able to faithfully take care of my wife and not wonder where we are gonna live the next day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a young lady in mind? If you don't, then you shouldn't worry too hard about it. If you do, then start making those plans. Eventually you're going to move out anyway, even if you're still single: so don't let the circumstances stop you. There's a Godly young lady in your life? Go for it, and work out the details together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I certainly knew lots of couples in college and law school that managed to do it.
> 
> So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?
Click to expand...


I certainly knew lots of couples in college and law school that managed to do it and be an inspiration to us (then) single folks.


----------



## Philip

Weston Stoler said:


> So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?



Let me be clearer: I've known some couples where one graduated first, they married, and then the other finished school. I wouldn't say that waiting to graduate is an undue delay, necessarily. However, I'm saying that in some cases, waiting for both to finish might be an undue delay (I have a particular case in mind, actually). "Undue delay" is going to vary from situation to situation: but don't be afraid to think outside the box. The question boils down to: are you trying to honor God in your decisions, or are you coming up with excuses to delay. I'd say that if you're graduated and sure that a certain person is the one who God wants you to marry, then you should get married. Your finances, in fact, will get sorted out better with two people working than with just one.


----------



## seajayrice

Thus grief still treads upon the heels of pleasure:
Married in haste, we may repent at leisure.

The flip side.


----------



## JoannaV

P. F. Pugh said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me be clearer: I've known some couples where one graduated first, they married, and then the other finished school. I wouldn't say that waiting to graduate is an undue delay, necessarily. However, I'm saying that in some cases, waiting for both to finish might be an undue delay (I have a particular case in mind, actually). "Undue delay" is going to vary from situation to situation: but don't be afraid to think outside the box. The question boils down to: are you trying to honor God in your decisions, or are you coming up with excuses to delay. I'd say that if you're graduated and sure that a certain person is the one who God wants you to marry, then you should get married. Your finances, in fact, will get sorted out better with two people working than with just one.
Click to expand...


Philip gives good advice. Unless your college provides free accommodation to singletons, for example, I can't really imagine how it would be cheaper to remain single.
I suppose I don't know much about health insurance, so maybe that could be an issue for some :-/


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Weston Stoler said:


> So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?


Brother, My Wife and I were Married while we both were serving in the US ARMY. We were both shipped to Saudi Arabia for our honeymoon. Not only that, we were then separated into different units! It was the right thing for us to do, and not only do I not regret it, nor can I think of one single reason for waiting, I believe if I did wait I would have missed far too much and would now have regretted the wait. Oh, how God has blessed us since then, and we have so much to be thankful for in not waiting. We would not have all that now.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Pilgrim Standard said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> So any idea of how people would do that while in college? it is mighty hard to keep a marriage in the best of circumstances. a couple in college both having to work jobs to make rent would be terribly hard. wouldnt it now?
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, My Wife and I were Married while we both were serving in the US ARMY. We were both shipped to Saudi Arabia for our honeymoon. Not only that, we were then separated into different units! It was the right thing for us to do, and not only do I not regret it, nor can I think of one single reason for waiting, I believe if I did wait I would have missed far too much and would now have regretted the wait. Oh, how God has blessed us since then, and we have so much to be thankful for in not waiting. We would not have all that now.
Click to expand...


What if the dad ( who is catholic) says no?


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

In my situation it would not have mattered one jot, other than I would have had sorrow for him, and would keep him in prayer. My wife prior to marriage was an adult, serving in the military. Would she need the blessing of a papist to enter marriage as a protestant? Being brought to Christ since then, the situation would have been different as knowing what I know now, I would not unequally yoke with a Romanist.

Do you have someone in mind who in this situation (Father is RC?)


----------



## Weston Stoler

Yeah, shes reformed though. No doubt do to my contribution.


----------



## jwithnell

> What if the dad ( who is catholic) says no?



Tough noogies! Seriously, in a Christian family, I believe this would fall into the wisdom of many. The honoring of our parents changes over time. An adult who sees no Biblical reason not to marry, should go ahead for the many reasons listed above. In either case, a father's disapproval should cause the couple to stop and think and perhaps pursue additional counsel via the elders or a trusted, older Christian.




> we also have such a high standard of living


 This came up in a variety of ways and I don't think it can be entirely brushed off as vanity. Finding an inexpensive apartment often means living in a dangerous area: the standard has become that people want the extra bedroom, dishwasher, clever layout, parking, etc. so everyone has to pay the price. If buying, when was the last time you heard the phrase: "starter home"?


----------



## Stargazer65

P. F. Pugh said:


> The question boils down to: are you trying to honor God in your decisions, or are you coming up with excuses to delay. I'd say that if you're graduated and sure that a certain person is the one who God wants you to marry, then you should get married. Your finances, in fact, will get sorted out better with two people working than with just one.



Philip states things pretty well here. I find lots of Christians coming up with excuses to delay. I know this from firsthand experience in my own youth, since I followed the wordly advice to wait until much older. It would have been nice if an elder would have mentored me in this area. I'm sure I would have gotten good advice had I asked, but being somewhat shy I muddled through things on my own.

I understand the caution that we should not make rash decisions and jump into marriage indiscriminately. However, I don't think that is the problem in the Christian community, at least not in my experience. I think Christians are waiting until the world thinks it's a good time to get married. Which seems to be getting later and later all the time. By the world's standard we should be waiting until we're both graduated from college, both have steady careers, have a four bedroom house, two cars, on and on ad nauseum. 

Adam had none of these things when God made Eve, except a job of course.


----------



## Weston Stoler

I guess I have just been fed those sayings that "your too young" far too long. Hahaha maybe I am kicking against the pricks


----------



## Stargazer65

Weston Stoler said:


> I guess I have just been fed those sayings that "your too young" far too long. Hahaha maybe I am kicking against the pricks



I'm not trying to goad you into anything Weston, I don't know your situation. I just want to encourage you not to go with the world's "Status Quo" of waiting for the sake of appearances, and instead seek God's will.


----------



## cajunhillbilly53

How about a 58 year old widwoer who misses the companionship of a woman? How long should I delay marriage?


----------



## Philip

cajunhillbilly53 said:


> How about a 58 year old widwoer who misses the companionship of a woman? How long should I delay marriage?



Until you find one who you want to marry.


----------



## steadfast7

Is the primary motivation not to delay marriage simply the avoidance of fornication? That doesn&rsquo;t sound right. Are there not positive benefits that should be emphasized?


----------



## Stargazer65

steadfast7 said:


> Is the primary motivation not to delay marriage simply the avoidance of fornication? That doesn’t sound right. Are there not positive benefits that should be emphasized?



I fully agree, there are other benefits. Just for one: For every negative command in the decalogue, there is a positive. So just from that aspect there is the positive benefit of marital sexual relations. Proverbs 5:18


----------



## JoannaV

Of course there are positive benefits of marriage. But there are also positive benefits of singleness. Consider 1 Cor 7:32-35.


----------



## Stargazer65

JoannaV said:


> Of course there are positive benefits of marriage. But there are also positive benefits of singleness. Consider 1 Cor 7:32-35.



I agree with you Joanna. The ability to remain single and happily serve the Lord in that capacity is a blessing. Undue delay of marriage has nothing to do with a single person serving God in that capacity. I believe it is talking about having a close man-woman relationship for too long of a period of time before marriage, or outside of marriage. In other words, being a steady boyfriend/girlfriend for years on end for the sake of having a relationship, but avoiding marriage.


----------



## deleteduser99

Stargazer65 said:


> I've been thinking about this for a while, but a recent CNN article brought it to my attention again:
> 
> Why young Christians aren't waiting anymore – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs
> 
> Obviously there are various sins causing this trend, I could list many. But I highlighted a particular sin in Q139 of the larger catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
> A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,780 are, adultery, fornication,781 rape, incest,782 sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;783 all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;784 all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;785 wanton looks,786 impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;787 prohibiting of lawful,788 and dispensing with unlawful marriages;789 allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;790 entangling vows of single life,791 *undue delay of marriage*,792 having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;793 unjust divorce,794 or desertion;795 idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,796 unchaste company;797 lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;798 and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.799
> 
> 
> 
> Society as a whole seems to be moving in a direction that delays marriage for selfish reasons. But my real concern is that Christianity is following suit. Young Christian men are plodding along through college, dragging their feet, spending their years of singleness in endless pleasure seeking with no real goal in sight. Young ladies are left waiting forever with no suitors and end up pursuing single careers. I'm sure that premarital sex is a natural outcome of this trend.
> 
> Do you agree that undue delay of marriage is an increasing problem in the church? Why, or why not?
Click to expand...


Depends where you go. In one part, the delay may be unavoidable because society seems to make further education unavoidable, and so the delay may just be a matter of responsibility. In some church environments though, you might have either an undue exalting of singleness, or a lack of discussion with young people on marriage. In some places all a young person will really hear on the subject is "Well God has someone for you, you just need to wait," but there is nothing at all said on preparing yourself, what the commitments involved are, and almost no encouragement to inquire into the subject itself. The result is that when a person wants to pursue, he realizes that he knows almost nothing about marriage except what he has learned from watching others, and knows even less from Scripture. This does happen in some places. Unfortunately too, I think the result is that because nothing is said on it, then nothing _good_ is said on the matter, and so you don't conceive of marriage as something that can be joyful, fulfilling, or successful--let alone God-exalting. Thus, less motivation to pursue.

The result too is that when you read Al Mohler on this for the first time, or you find that in the WLC, you are not a little caught off guard. Coming to a Reformed church, I was a bit surprised on the change of emphasis. So it depends on what church you are talking about.


----------



## Constantlyreforming

It does take between 11-20 months to plan a proper wedding....


just sayin'....

---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------

Some men worked years before they were permitted to marry a woman...and then they ended up marrying the wrong woman....


----------



## Stargazer65

Constantlyreforming said:


> It does take between 11-20 months to plan a proper wedding....
> 
> 
> just sayin'....





I guess my wife and I were never properly wed then, we only took 3 months to plan ours.


----------



## Kim G

Stargazer65 said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does take between 11-20 months to plan a proper wedding....
> 
> 
> just sayin'....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess my wife and I were never properly wed then, we only took 3 months to plan ours.
Click to expand...


We took twelve days.  And it was beautiful!


----------



## Constantlyreforming

I'm being koi.

anyhow, 

I do wonder how our marriages would fare if arranged marriages were still the usual...


----------



## Stargazer65

Constantlyreforming said:


> I'm being koi.



I knew. But isn't it ironic that big wedding ceremonies are sometimes at the beginning of the shortest marriages?



Constantlyreforming said:


> anyhow,
> 
> I do wonder how our marriages would fare if arranged marriages were still the usual...



I suspect they would do a little better, but I don't have any hard data to back it up. Just adding a little parental wisdom to the equation would improve things in many cases.


----------



## dog8food

Here's my excuse:
I'm nearly 30 with no job prospects--not even sure what direction to go. Once I get that settled (if ever) I might consider a relationship.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Also some people are just not mature enough to take up a wife. We have children marrying adult women (maturity wise). I believe that a man should be mature and able to support his wife emotively, financially, and spiritually. If they be 18 or 70.


----------



## JBaldwin

Constantlyreforming said:


> It does take between 11-20 months to plan a proper wedding....
> 
> 
> just sayin'....
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------
> 
> Some men worked years before they were permitted to marry a woman...and then they ended up marrying the wrong woman....



End up marrying the wrong woman? Sometimes I wonder if in God's economy that is even possible. Here's what I mean. Yes, you can make a poor choice in a spouse. But who's to say that God didn't intend that for good? Especially when you asked God to guide you and believed He would do so? I am not talking about presuming on the grace of God, but when we genuinely make mistakes.


----------



## TimV

> Some men worked years before they were permitted to marry a woman...and then they ended up marrying the wrong woman....



But a week later he got a hottie


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Constantlyreforming said:


> I'm being koi.


Fascinating!

*koi* plural of koi
Noun: A common carp of a large ornamental variety, originally bred in Japan.
ht wikipedia


----------



## Tim

Weston Stoler said:


> Also some people are just not mature enough to take up a wife. We have children marrying adult women (maturity wise). I believe that a man should be mature and able to support his wife emotively, financially, and spiritually. If they be 18 or 70.



Young men and women have a responsibility to become mature _so that_ they don't delay marriage.


----------



## Philip

Tim said:


> Young men and women have a responsibility to become mature so that they don't delay marriage.



Let's just be careful not to fault folks simply _because_ they married later.


----------



## Peairtach

JBaldwin said:


> Constantlyreforming said:
> 
> 
> 
> It does take between 11-20 months to plan a proper wedding....
> 
> 
> just sayin'....
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:42 AM ----------
> 
> Some men worked years before they were permitted to marry a woman...and then they ended up marrying the wrong woman....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> End up marrying the wrong woman? Sometimes I wonder if in God's economy that is even possible. Here's what I mean. Yes, you can make a poor choice in a spouse. But who's to say that God didn't intend that for good? Especially when you asked God to guide you and believed He would do so? I am not talking about presuming on the grace of God, but when we genuinely make mistakes.
Click to expand...


It's still the wrong woman in God's preceptive will. You were foolish in choosing her.

It's the right woman in God's decretive will. All things work together for the good.

---------- Post added at 12:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:38 AM ----------




> Young men and women have a responsibility to become mature so that they don't delay marriage.



Maturity is a difficult thing to judge. Might merit another thread.

*Coy*


> early 14c., "quiet, modest, demure," from O.Fr. coi, earlier quei "quiet, still, placid, gentle," ultimately from L. quietus "resting, at rest" (see quiet). Meaning "shy" emerged late 14c. Meaning "unwilling to commit" is 1961. Related: Coyly; coyness.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Peairtach said:


> Coy


Sounds *fishy*... You evidently missed the context...


----------



## Peairtach

I thought that Ethan made a mistake using "koi" instead of "coy". 

I don't see any other fish references in the context. 

Maybe I'm missing something


----------



## Tim

P. F. Pugh said:


> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young men and women have a responsibility to become mature so that they don't delay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just be careful not to fault folks simply _because_ they married later.
Click to expand...


Agreed. We are discussing the _undue_ delay of marriage. There is appropriate delay and inappropriate delay. My point was that irresponsibility does not make an otherwise inappropriate delay to be appropriate in every way. In our Christian charity to one another, we of course must meet people where they are. By all means, continue to develop character and responsibility if one is not ready, but realize that sin often has a great part in prolonging this development. Am I free of this indictment? No, I am not.


----------



## Stargazer65

Peairtach said:


> I thought that Ethan made a mistake using "koi" instead of "coy".
> 
> I don't see any other fish references in the context.
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something



I'm sure he created the fish word on purpose. The chances of mispelling only two out of three letters, and coming up with a fish by a random chance is just too implausable. Wouldn't happen in millions of years.


----------



## Stargazer65

Tim said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Young men and women have a responsibility to become mature so that they don't delay marriage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's just be careful not to fault folks simply _because_ they married later.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. We are discussing the _undue_ delay of marriage. There is appropriate delay and inappropriate delay. My point was that irresponsibility does not make an otherwise inappropriate delay to be appropriate in every way. In our Christian charity to one another, we of course must meet people where they are. By all means, continue to develop character and responsibility if one is not ready, but realize that sin often has a great part in prolonging this development. Am I free of this indictment? No, I am not.
Click to expand...


As Tim says, we have charity towards one another. The purpose of the thread is not to pick on people who marry late, or single people, or those with appropriate reasons to delay. It should be assumed that everyone is following after God's will for their life, unless they state otherwise, or act in blatant violation of commandments. The purpose is to comment on whether you believe there is a problem with undue delay of marriage in the church, and why or why not. It is certainly valid to state that Christians have a responsibility to mature so that they can marry. That statment makes no unfair judgments of anyone, it should be understood that marriage is not God's will for every single person. It should be also understood that not everyone is able to marry, even if they desire to do so, for valid reasons.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Everyone!

I have actually talked with people who have studied the confessions on that issue, and they have questioned whether or not the "undue delay of marriage" here refers to the delay of marriage that Mohler and others are talking about.

For example, the Puritans actually had laws against long engagements. This would make a ton of sense as the background for this section of the confession, since delaying marriage in the context of engagement was seen as something that could lead to serious problems.

Also, while I am aware that Mohler and others use 1 Corinthians 7:2, 9 as a proof text for this position, in my mind, they simply are not good proof texts. 

First of all, notice the structure of verses 2-4

2. ...man...wife...woman...husband.
3. ...husband...wife...wife...husband
4. ...wife...husband...husband...wife

Notice, that verses 2-4 have exactly the same structure, namely, a chiasm. It is in the form of:

A...B...B...A

Thus, most scholars will say that verses 2-4 are a unit. However, verses 3-4 are talking about the marital duty of sexual relations. How can this be?

Of course, the simple solution to the problem is that the Greek term echo [to have] can be used as a euphemism for sexual relations. The following texts in the Septuagint and the New Testament are some of the texts mentioned by Gordon Fee as instances in which echo bears this meaning:

Exodus 2:1 There was a certain man of tribe of Levi who took [a wife] from the daughters of Levi, and he had [echo] her. [translation mine]

Deuteronomy 28:30 thou shalt take a wife, and another man shall have [echo] her; thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell in it; thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes of it. [Brenton Translation]

Isaiah 13:16 and they will strike their children in front of them, they will plunder their houses, and they will have [echo] their wives. [translation mine]

Mark 6:18 For John had been saying to Herod, "It is not lawful for you to have [echo] your brother's wife." [NASB]

1 Corinthians 5:1 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has [echo] his father's wife. [NASB]

Thus, the meaning of verse 2 would be "because of sexual immorality, let each man have sexual relations with his own wife, and let each woman have sexual relations with her own husband."

This interpretation would also fit with verse 1. Paul would be admitting that there is some truth to what is said in verse 1 but, because sexual immorality will exist in this life, we are not to refrain from sexual relations with our wives. Indeed, he goes on to say that there is only one case where someone cannot have sexual relations with their wife, and that by an agreement for a period of time so that they can devote themselves to prayer [v.5]. Thus, the text is addressing one topic from verse 1 until verse 5.

There are also some other criticisms that can be levied against this interpretation of this passage. First of all, there is a Greek word for "to marry," namely, gameo, and Paul uses that term down in verse 9 in the imperative. It is hard to explain why it is that Paul used the imperative of gameo in verse 9, but not in verse 2. There is no literary reason why he would change, nor is their a contextual reason why he would change.

Also, it would seem, if we take this interpretation, that Paul contradicts himself. Paul later on commands them not to seek to change their state [7:27]. Now, whether you limit this to the time of the "present distress" or not, you have just made Paul command the virgins in the Corinthian congregation to get married, and yet, to not seek to change their marital status. Such makes Paul utterly self-contradictory.

Not only that, but this interpretation completely disrupts the text of verses 1-7. Verse 2 would be a statement addressed to virgins, verses 3-4 would be a text addressed to married people, and verses 5-7 would again be referring to virgins. Such an interpretation thus makes the structure of the entire passage totally random, and inserts an unnatural break at every change of audience.

Thus, I would say that 1 Corinthians 7:2 is not at all relevant to our present circumstances as single people.
I have also found out something interesting with regards to this passage. The NET has interestingly translated this text as:

1 Corinthians 7:2 But because of immoralities, each man should have relations with his own wife and each woman with her own husband.

What is also interesting is the footnote that they give explaining the reasoning for their translation:

tn Grk “each man should have his own wife.” “Have” in this context means “have marital relations with” (see the following verse). The verb ἐχέτω (ecetw, “have”) occurs twice in the Greek text, but has not been repeated in the translation for stylistic reasons. This verb occurs 8 times in the LXX (Exod 2:1; Deut 28:30; 2 Chr 11:21; 1 Esd 9:12, 18; Tob 3:8; Isa 13:16; 54:1) with the meaning “have sexual relations with,” and 9 times elsewhere in the NT with the same meaning (Matt 20:23; 22:28; Mark 6:18; 12:33; Luke 20:28; John 4:18 [twice] 1 Cor 5:1; 7:29).

It is interesting that they have said the very same thing I said above. Not only that, but other very well known commentators say the same thing. Dr. Craig Blomberg [pgs. 133, 136], Gordon Fee [pgs. 278-279], and Dr. Richard Hays [pgs. 113-114] have all taken this interpretation of this passage in their commentaries. In fact, Gordon Fee says he knows of no instance in which the idiom "to have a wife" means "to take a wife" [Fee, p.278 n48]. He says that, in most of those instances, the Greek term lamba,nw is used. He sights the fact that this idiom is used in a Western text variant of 7:28 where it replaces the Greek verb game,w which means "to marry." He also cites an apocryphal text in Tobit 4:12 which does, indeed, refer to taking a wife because of sexual immorality [pornei,a], and lamba,nw is clearly used there. He concludes that, "Paul's usage is clearly different from these" [Fee, 278 n.48]. Furthermore, Fee notes that, for a woman to "take a husband" was utterly foreign to first century cultures [Fee, 278 n48].

Also, as far as 1 Corinthians 7:9, the problem there is with the context. I agree with Fee and Blomberg and Hays that verses 8-9 are talking about widows and widowers. There is a masculine/feminine pairing, and the masculine form of "widow" is falling out of usage at this time. Also, it would produce incredible awkwardness as Paul would then be addressing singles twenty verses apart, and giving them contradictory messages [marry, but remain as you are]. Hence, I would say that verse 8 should be understood as, "But I say even unto the widows and the widowers..."

This also fits well in the flow of Paul's thought in this passage. In verses 2-5 he says that husbands and wives should have sexual relations because of sexual immorality so Satan doesn't tempt them because of their "lack of self control." This very nicely parallels Paul's statement in verse 9 "But, if they do not have self control let them marry." If Paul is dealing with widows and widowers in verses 8-9, then he is dealing with what happens when the sexual relationship is broken up by death. Obviously, husbands and wives cannot engage in sexual relations after death. So, how is this to be handled? Paul says that, if you can, you are to remain as he is [widowed]. However, if you still desire those sexual relations, then you should remarry, because it is better to marry than to not have self control.

Finally the passage about Judah and Tamar is not really dealing about the issue of some kind of delay of marriage in the sense Mohler and others are talking about. First, the background to the text is most probably the levarite duties. Tamar's first two husbands had died because God struck them dead. She was entitled to marry Shelah, but Judah made up the excuse that he was too young, because he was afraid that Shelah would die like his other two sons. The point is that he is not taking care of the widow in his household, which is totally contradicted by the law of God which gives specific laws for this very situation. Thus, Judah was acting against the very character of God to not take care of the widow in his household.

Hence, I have not seen anything in the scriptures anywhere that says that "delay of marriage" in the sense that Mohler is talking about is wrong in and of itself. However, I think the problem is that both marriage and singleness can be used for selfish reasons. There are married people, for example, who seek to control their spouse and their kids. There are also married people who spend time with family rather than going to church. In the same way, singleness can be used in selfish ways at all. The issue is how are we using are singleness. Are we using it to the glory of God, or are we going to use it for ourselves? That is something that cannot be cured with marriage, because a person who uses their singleness selfishly will use their marriage selfishly. Then, not just one person will be hurt, but several people will be hurt! Therefore, the solution to this problem is not marriage; that will actually make things worse. The solution is the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. It is getting people to stop using their marital status in a selfish fashion, and getting them to start using it in a Godly fashion for his glory.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## py3ak

Adam, that's a very interesting post. What would your take be on the various verses that mention a "wife of your youth", as in Proverbs 5 or Malachi 2? Obviously these are not a command, but it does seem to reflect a presumption that marriage will (ordinarily) take place in youth.


----------



## TexanRose

I think one's views on birth control are relevant to this question. 

Some marry young but with the expectation that the wife will work to support the family until, for instance, the husband finishes graduate school. In those cases child bearing is often delayed for a few years. 

Others might prefer to delay the marriage rather than marry and delay the child bearing.


----------



## Hebrew Student

py3ak,



> Adam, that's a very interesting post. What would your take be on the various verses that mention a "wife of your youth", as in Proverbs 5 or Malachi 2? Obviously these are not a command, but it does seem to reflect a presumption that marriage will (ordinarily) take place in youth.



Yes, I have heard those verses used in that context. The difficulty with things like entailment is that it is also necessary to take it in context. For example, note these particular usages of the construction נְעוּרִים+construct:

Job 13:26 For you write bitter things against me and make me inherit the _*iniquities of my youth*_.

Psalm 25:7 Remember not the _*sins of my youth*_ or my transgressions; according to your steadfast love remember me, for the sake of your goodness, O LORD!

Jeremiah 31:19 For after I had turned away, I relented, and after I was instructed, I slapped my thigh; I was ashamed, and I was confounded, because I bore _*the disgrace of my youth*_.'

Ezekiel 23:21 Thus you longed for the _*lewdness of your youth*_, when the Egyptians handled your bosom and pressed your young breasts."

Now, obviously, I don't know of anyone who is going to argue that these texts are presuming that iniquity, sin, disgrace, and lewdness will (ordinarily) take place in youth in the same sense that you are saying marriage is. The answer to the question is whether the text is intending to normalize marriage in youth. Obviously, given the above examples, that cannot be assumed just from the mere phrase.

I remember talking to Dr. Lawson Younger about this at TEDS. We were sitting in a class one time, and he was talking about marriage in the Ancient Near East. He told us that marriage at this time period took place at the age of 13, and, of course, it was usually arranged by the parents, so the children had little say in when they got married. I asked him about these things in relationship to the phrase "wife of your youth," and he seemed to say that it was more of a metonymy for "your wife."

I thought it was an odd understanding, until I read the same thing in Bruce Waltke's commentary on Proverbs in a discussion of the relationship between Proverbs 2:17 and 5:18. Apparently, there is a whole exegetical discussion surrounding the relationship between these two verses:



> "The companion of her youth" (אַלּוּף נְעוּרֶיהָ) is a metonymy for her husband as teacher. אַלּוּף denotes "a [personal] friend, confidant, [bosom] companion, comrade" (cf. 16:28; 17:9; Ps. 55:14[15]; Jer. 3:4; 13:21; Mic. 7:5). Its verbal root means "to instruct" and may refer to the intimate fellowship that develops from people sharing and getting to know each other over time. In such a relationship, friends become vulnerable to each other because their trust can be misused. Indeed, the seven uses of this word refer to the betrayed confidence of a close friend. All the ancient versions translated אַלּוּף by either "teaching" or "educator" and the like (e.g., ducem ["guide"] in the Vulg.). McKane believes that the term is a metonymy for the wisdom teacher at school or the father at home. He finds support in Jer. 3:4, where, according to him, the expression "friend (אַלּוּף) of my youth" is a reference to God as teacher. The comparison and interpretation may be valid, but the word seems strange for a father, we know nothing of schools in Israel before the intertestimental period, and coeducation seems most unlikely. O. Plöger thinks the wisdom teacher's own female student is in view and finds additional support in the parallel in 5:18, even though אַלּוּף is not used. In 5:18, however, the male student is in view. In this lecture on sexual infidelity against God, the metonymy אַלּוּף more probably refers to the faithful husband. As Hosea guided Gomer (Hos. 3:2-3), so the disloyal wife's former husband had faithfully instructed her in the right way. By way of comparison and contrast, Malachi speaks of "the wife of your youth" (cf Proverbs 5:18) against whom the husband acted faithlessly (Mal. 2:14, 16). [Waltke Bruce K. _The Book of Proverbs, Chapters 1-15_. Eerdman's Publishing House. Grand Rapids, Michigan. 2004. pgs. 122-123].



However, it is interesting to note that Waltke, in the same work, does believe that the early contraction of marriage in the Ancient Near East may have something to do with it. In discussion Proverbs 5:18 in the same work he writes that "The expression points to marriage contracted at an early age (see 2:17) and represents (or, better, anticipates) the son as married" [Waltke, p. 321]. Thus Waltke does not seem to rule out the possibility that this is referring to the fact that people married due to arranged marriage very young in the Ancient Near East.

In my own opinion, I think it depends upon the context in which the term is used. In Proverbs, very clearly, I think it has the connotation of "guide" associated with the phrase "wife of your youth" since we are dealing with a son growing in wisdom from the time of youthful immaturity. However, one could argue, based upon the fact that Malachi is in the context of divorce, that it likewise has the connotation of a faithful guide who has left, similar to the situation with Gomer. The fact of the matter is that *both* things could be implied by the phase, namely, the cultural practice of contraction of marriage by the parents at a very young age, and the fact that this person is then a guide, companion, and teacher. However, which is emphasized is going to be entirely dependent on the context.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Stargazer65

> I have actually talked with people who have studied the confessions on that issue, and they have questioned whether or not the "undue delay of marriage" here refers to the delay of marriage that Mohler and others are talking about.



Adam,

I haven't heard Mohler and others talking about this subject, is there a link or source where you could refer me.



> For example, the Puritans actually had laws against long engagements. This would make a ton of sense as the background for this section of the confession, since delaying marriage in the context of engagement was seen as something that could lead to serious problems.



Yep, I don't doubt that this is true, that was how I interpreted the confessional statement. Of course, I also was broadening the definition of undue delay of marriage to include long term boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, and long term recreational dating. Such things probably did not commonly exist in the church at the time of the confession, but I think the principle is the same.


----------



## py3ak

Hebrew Student said:


> The fact of the matter is that *both* things could be implied by the phase, namely, the cultural practice of contraction of marriage by the parents at a very young age, and the fact that this person is then a guide, companion, and teacher. However, which is emphasized is going to be entirely dependent on the context.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Adam.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Stargazer65,

Mohler has addressed this issue quite often:

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; The Case for (Early) Marriage

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Waiting Too Long for Marriage

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; The Delay of Marriage and the Decline of Church Attendance

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Marriage Going Out of Style?

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; Delaying Marriage — Another Look at the Costs

AlbertMohler.com &ndash; More Americans Living Alone

One of my major difficulties is that a lot of Mohler's argumentation is sociological and not exegetical. When you make your arguments on the basis of sociology, sometimes the situation is more complex than a simple blanket idea that "delay of marriage" is a sin. As I mentioned in my first post, the problem might be that people are simply using their marital status in ungodly ways. Something that is inherently good can be used in a way that is ungodly, such as high tech video equipment that can be used either for the teaching of God's word or for p0rnography.



> Yep, I don't doubt that this is true, that was how I interpreted the confessional statement. Of course, I also was broadening the definition of undue delay of marriage to include long term boyfriend-girlfriend relationships, and long term recreational dating. Such things probably did not commonly exist in the church at the time of the confession, but I think the principle is the same.



I think the question is what principle you are taking out of this statement of the confession. The point of the statement is that, once someone is engaged, they know that this person is definitely going to be their spouse. That creates temptation issues if the engagement is drawn out too long.

However, that is totally different from a society that celebrates a lack of self-control, and praises a lack of virginity. In such cases, the issues go much deeper than temptation that can result from the fact that you know that you are going to be married to this specific woman. In such a case, it involves a heart that is set in rebellion against God. That cannot be cured by marriage; it can only be cured by the blood of Jesus Christ and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

I would say that extending this out to include simple relationships between boyfriends and girlfriends doesn't take seriously the nature of sin as something that begins in the heart. We sin because we are sinners, not because we are unmarried. It is the spirit that cleanses us and produces the fruit of self-control. Fundamentally, such an application confuses instances where normal everyday things such as engagement or death can lean someone toward sexual sin, and sexual sin that is simply the result of a wicked and evil heart, with little or no influence externally. If a person must have sexual relations in a dating relationship, their problems go deeper than simply that they are unmarried; they go to the whole issue of the wickedness of our hearts, and our need for repentance in the area of our sexual behavior. To confuse these to things is, I believe, to misapply the scriptures and the confessions.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## TimV

> and sexual sin that is simply the result of a wicked and evil heart, with little or no influence externally



This thread may have taken a more complicated turn than was necessary, although like the others I'm grateful to Adam for the interesting and informative posts.

The Lord wants godly seed, and so there *is* an external influence that causes sexual sin. It's a built in desire that generally has to find an outlet, and that's marriage. It's the simplest explanation of what the divines meant, in my opinion.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Tim,

The problem is that sexual sin occurs with people who are twelve and thirteen years old. Should we go back to having people marry at 12 or 13 years old simply because they have "a built in desire that generally has to find an outlet, and that's marriage?" Again, it doesn't make any sense.

The only way to make sense of sexual relations between people in their early teens is to recognize the wickedness of the human heart as a major factor. If that is not recognized, my fear is that people who naturally have these evil desires will take that desire into marriage and end up hurting, not only their wife, but possibly, their children as well. That is why I would say a proper distinction needs to be made.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Stargazer65

> The problem is that sexual sin occurs with people who are twelve and thirteen years old. Should we go back to having people marry at 12 or 13 years old simply because they have "a built in desire that generally has to find an outlet, and that's marriage?" Again, it doesn't make any sense.
> 
> The only way to make sense of sexual relations between people in their early teens is to recognize the wickedness of the human heart as a major factor. If that is not recognized, my fear is that people who naturally have these evil desires will take that desire into marriage and end up hurting, not only their wife, but possibly, their children as well. That is why I would say a proper distinction needs to be made.


I don't think anyone discounts that the wicked heart is the root of all problems. If we had no sinful heart, we wouldn't be talking about this. You also rightly point out that marriage is not the cure, sanctification through the Holy Spirit is the cure. But God has given us marriage as a good thing, and if we despise that gift, there are consequences. Adultery for one. 

I'm thinking of young people who are old enough to marry, but who have an attitude of not being ready for marriage. Also, I'm thinking about a church culture that encourages this attitude. No one has considered that we should encourage 12 and 13 year olds to marry. However, the scriptures teach that sin affects everyone. If the 25 year olds eschew marriage and are promiscuous, the 12 and 13 year olds can be led astray by example.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Stargazer65,



> But God has given us marriage as a good thing, and if we despise that gift, there are consequences. Adultery for one.
> 
> I'm thinking of young people who are old enough to marry, but who have an attitude of not being ready for marriage. Also, I'm thinking about a church culture that encourages this attitude. No one has considered that we should encourage 12 and 13 year olds to marry. However, the scriptures teach that sin affects everyone. If the 25 year olds eschew marriage and are promiscuous, the 12 and 13 year olds can be led astray by example.



Who said anything about "despising" marriage? I certainly didn't. I am sure that you may find someone who refuses to get married because he thinks marriage is a curse. However, the solution is not to get him married, but for his heart to be changed so that he no longer believes that marriage is a curse.

Also, I think there are some major assumptions in the statement "ready for marriage." I don't even think that is the issue. I think the issue is growing in spiritual maturity. If you grow in spiritual maturity, you will be able to serve God wherever he leads, either in marriage or in singleness.

I think my main point is that there are a lot of reasons people do things that are not morally wrong such as delaying marriage in this sense. Yes, they can do the right thing for the wrong reason. Imagine a someone who knows that their coworker has stolen property from the company. However, the reason that they go and turn them in is because they hate them and want to get back at them. Now, in such an instance, is the action of turning someone in wrong? Not in and of itself; it is wrong because the person has an ill motive for so doing, even though the action itself is morally just.

In other words, there are many reasons why twenty-five year olds as well as twelve and thirteen year olds engage in extramarital sexual relations. Sometimes, there are external factors that can be helped by getting married. However, if the person's heart is in rebellion against God, then marriage is not going to help. That is why I raised the issue of thirteen year olds. Very clearly, getting married is not going to help them in that situation. So, could we not also conclude that there is a sense in which that is true for many 25 year olds as well? The point is that motives are complex things, and there will be instances in which the advice "get married" may end up doing more harm than good, not because there is anything wrong with marriage, but because there is something already wrong with the way the person is using their singleness. Give them ammunition to hurt people other than themselves, and they will do it. In such an instance, what needs to be done is not give a glib answer like "get married," but to call that person to repentance. 

I would say that the argument presented on this thread is an example of confusing something that may be sound advice in certain contexts with universal Biblical command.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Stargazer65

> Who said anything about "despising" marriage? I certainly didn't.



Adam,

I'm not directing comments at_ you_, please don't take it like that. This thread is not directed at any person or persons at all, it is about a perceived trend in the church.


----------



## Stargazer65

> I would say that the argument presented on this thread is an example of confusing something that may be sound advice in certain contexts with universal Biblical command.



I think you misunderstand my OP Adam. The purpose of the thread is not to present marriage as a cure for sexual sin. Nor is it meant as a command for everyone, everywhere to get married at a younger age. I quote from my previous post:




> Kevin said:
> The purpose of the thread is not to pick on people who marry late, or single people, or those with appropriate reasons to delay. It should be assumed that everyone is following after God's will for their life, unless they state otherwise, or act in blatant violation of commandments. The purpose is to comment on whether you believe there is a problem with undue delay of marriage in the church, and why or why not.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Kevin,

I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am saying that no one *needs* a good reason to delay marriage in this sense anymore then they need a good reason to eat pizza for supper instead of chili and baked potatoes.

Also, I am not saying you *are* directing your comments at me. My point is simply that an explanation such as that people are "despising marriage" was not mentioned to this point, and is simply irrelevant when we think of the complexity of issues of the heart that are involved in a person doing something that is inherently okay [delaying marriage], but doing so for an immoral purpose. Explanations such as "these people are despising marriage" is way too simplistic.

In other words, I believe there is a problem in a church, but delay of marriage is not the problem; it is how people use this delay in marriage. They can use it for Godly purposes, or they can use it for selfish reasons. What we identify as a "problem of delay of marriage" comes when you use this delay for selfish reasons, and, because they are doing things for selfish reasons, then cannot even begin to hear if God is calling them to marriage, because they are so absorbed in themselves. However, it isn't the delay of marriage that is the problem; it is the selfishness that is the problem. Get rid of the selfishness, and you will find more people willing to consider the possibility that God is calling them to marriage, or using their singleness to glorify God.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Stargazer65

Adam, 

I agree that selfishness is the root problem.

I would disagree that no one needs a good reason to delay marriage. It's not a choice like what's for dinner, it's a duty, see the Larger Catechism:

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,767 words,768 and behavior;769 and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;770 watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;771 temperance,772 keeping of chaste company,773 modesty in apparel;774 *marriage by those that have not the gift of continency*,775 conjugal love,776 and cohabitation;777 diligent	labor in our callings;778 shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.779

I don't believe what I emphasized is taught enough in the church, and I call that despising (neglecting) marriage. It is true that selfishness leads to delaying marriage for poor reasons, but I believe it is equally true that delaying marriage leads to selfishness. You said:



> "I believe there is a problem in the church, but delay of marriage is not the problem; it is how people use this delay in marriage."


 I think there would be less of the latter problem if there was less of the former problem. Granted, marriage is not a cure for the human heart, there will be problems still. But, God gave us marriage as a gift and we should use it, unless we are hindered somehow. 

So I believe delay of marriage is a problem in the church. It's sounds like you just believe that my emphasis is on the wrong aspect (i.e. selfishness is the issue, not delay of marriage). Looking at things from a broad perspective that is probably a fair statement. But I am purposely focusing on the more narrow aspect of the effect of delay of marriage in the church.


----------



## JBaldwin

> So I believe delay of marriage is a problem in the church. It's sounds like you just believe that my emphasis is on the wrong aspect (i.e. selfishness is the issue, not delay of marriage). Looking at things from a broad perspective that is probably a fair statement. But I am purposely focusing on the more narrow aspect of the effect of delay of marriage in the church.



I had a very interesting conversation with an elderly minister yesterday on this subject. He mentioned that one of the problems of delaying marriage is that both women and men get busy "trying out" different ones to see who is the best for them. After trying out several people, they get confused and don't know what they want. This problem used to be primarily something observable outside the church. Now it's the thing to switch from one boyfriend/girlfriend to the next. Even if there is no sex or impropriety involved, this does become an issue.


----------



## Hebrew Student

Stargazer65,

I don't think we can quote the catechisms as scripture. In fact, the two verses that the catechism gives as support for that are the verses that I exegeted above, 1 Corinthians 7:2,9. In fact, I would say that, in light of the research that has been done by folks such as Fee, Blomberg, Hays, and others in the exegesis of this passage, the Church should, indeed, rethink whether there is such a thing as a "gift of continence." Scripture is the ultimate authority, not the confessions. In fact, that is one reason why, although I believe the Westminster confession is generally faithful, I hold to the three forms of unity, is that I could find no mention of a gift of continence in those documents.

So, no, I don't think anyone needs a good reason to delay marriage, and I *do* believe it *is* like a choice of what to have for dinner, because I find no scriptural support for a virgin being bound to anything in terms of marital status.



> I don't believe what I emphasized is taught enough in the church, and I call that despising (neglecting) marriage. It is true that selfishness leads to delaying marriage for poor reasons, but I believe it is equally true that delaying marriage leads to selfishness.



The problem is that it is not a matter of neglecting marriage, but a matter of neglecting your position on the subject. The two are not the same thing. The reason I would say that your position is neglected is because I believe it is exegetically tenuous. Secondly, I don't think that one is "neglecting" marriage if one doesn't get married. A person who helps watch children on the weekends so a couple can go out and spend time alone is certainly not neglecting marriage; they are helping it! A person who seeks to help in the education of covenant children is certainly not neglecting marriage; they are helping it! The point is that there is a way to nurture strong marriages in the church without actually getting married, and as long as a person is doing that, they are not "neglecting" marriage.

Also, as I have already said and you have already said, it is not delaying marriage that leads to selfishness. It is the condition of the heart. Sin comes from the heart; the surroundings simply bring out what is already there. Again, I don't see how you can hold this position together if you do, indeed, believe that.



> I think there would be less of the latter problem if there was less of the former problem. Granted, marriage is not a cure for the human heart, there will be problems still. But, God gave us marriage as a gift and we should use it, unless we are hindered somehow.



Did not God give both the chili and mashed potatoes as well as the pizza as a gift? Does that mean we can use one, and not the other? Again, does that someone mean that it would be wrong to give the gift to someone else? There are many assumptions in this line of argumentation.



> So I believe delay of marriage is a problem in the church. It's sounds like you just believe that my emphasis is on the wrong aspect (i.e. selfishness is the issue, not delay of marriage). Looking at things from a broad perspective that is probably a fair statement. But I am purposely focusing on the more narrow aspect of the effect of delay of marriage in the church.



I would say that before you can identify something as a "problem," then you need to show why it is a problem from scripture, either by vocabulary or concept. When it comes to virgins, the Bible presents marital status as something that is morally neutral. Never, does it ever present the idea that virgin who is unmarried is in the wrong simply because he is delaying marriage. Because of that, it is not so much a matter of the delay itself, but how the delay is being used.

So, in short, if I am going to be convinced of this position, I am going to have to be convinced from scripture. If I am not persuaded from either scripture or sound reason, I have to stick with what I have said.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## py3ak

Matthew 19:12 seems to indicate that some are born without the normal impulses that would come to legitimate expression in marriage. Is that not a "gift of continence" of sorts?

It seems to me that blaming "selfishness" without regard to the circumstances is inadequate. Many people become cranky when they are hungry or under stress: no doubt they need to learn to be self-controlled even under those circumstances; but it is simply not common sense to suggest that supplying food or lifting burdens are irrelevant to the matter - that they will then only be selfish in a different way. "It is not good that the man should be alone." Marriage was provided for the preventing of fornication and for the mutual help and support that the one ought to have of the other. That some are able to function quite appropriately without that by no means implies that everyone can.


----------



## Peairtach

It's probably difficult to assess whether another person is unduly delaying marriage, or whether he has good reasons for not getting married, so that a pastor can say, "You are guilty of undue delay."

It is a complicated business with many different factors involved.

Some people may be more suited to the single life than others, as our Lord and the WCF indicate. Some are naturally suited for the single life, while others are denying themselves marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God.

The question of when or to whom one should marry, maybe comes under the rubric of 


> All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient (I Corinthians 10:23)



It takes wisdom to know if, when and to whom to get married.

We should marry if we believe it's God's preceptive will for us, but if it's God's will He will provide the spouse and the opportunity. 

It's not God's preceptive will for everyone to get married; that is, it may be clearly very unwise for some people to get married.

No doubt there are some Christians out there that have good health, a decent job, and some - or one - suitable woman who would want to marry them, and they would be more productive in God's kingdom by getting married and having lots of children. 

Maybe God is speaking to such in His Word and Providence that they should get hitched.


----------



## Stargazer65

> Did not God give both the chili and mashed potatoes as well as the pizza as a gift? Does that mean we can use one, and not the other? Again, does that someone mean that it would be wrong to give the gift to someone else? There are many assumptions in this line of argumentation.


Adam,

I have known one missionary, who I believe had the gift of continency, who took his decision to not marry very seriously. He was able to direct his desires to his ministry by God's grace. He is now married BTW, but he earnestly prayed and meditated about his marital condition in both cases.

I don't believe it fair to equate a choice of pizza or chili, with a choice of whether or not to marry. Marriage is an institution given in Genesis 2 at creation. God didn't make us male and female to introduce an option to singleness, it is a part of our nature. The decision to marry or not is a serious business, one that should be approached with biblical wisdom and prayer. I see a lack of that attitude in many young Christians today, albeit not as bad as the rest of the world yet. Flippantly putting off marriage until they feel the time is right (i.e. after I'm done with the pleasures of the world).

I don't advocate any sort of investigation to determine whether people are avoiding marriage or not. I do however believe it is a duty to encourage young people to marry, if they have those desires.

---------- Post added at 03:58 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:43 PM ----------

Thank you Ruben. You expressed my thoughts very coherently:



> It seems to me that blaming "selfishness" without regard to the circumstances is inadequate. Many people become cranky when they are hungry or under stress: no doubt they need to learn to be self-controlled even under those circumstances; but it is simply not common sense to suggest that supplying food or lifting burdens are irrelevant to the matter


----------



## Hebrew Student

py3ak,

I would say that those who are eunuchs from the womb of their mother are eunuchs who are born with some physical deformity. Hence, the three categories would be 1. those who are born with a birth defect, 2. Those who are castrated, 3. Those who have chosen to remain single in order to serve God in that state. Even John Calvin, who argued for a gift of continence, took this interpretation:



> Those who are so by nature, or who have been castrated by men, are debarred from marriage by this defect, for they are not men. He says that there are other eunuchs, who have castrated themselves, that they may be more at liberty to serve God; [Calvin, John. Harmony of the Gospels]





> It seems to me that blaming "selfishness" without regard to the circumstances is inadequate. Many people become cranky when they are hungry or under stress: no doubt they need to learn to be self-controlled even under those circumstances; but it is simply not common sense to suggest that supplying food or lifting burdens are irrelevant to the matter - that they will then only be selfish in a different way.



I certainly agree that you have to take into account the context of the actions. I may not agree with someone's selfish behavior, but I might understand why they did it, given their context. And, certainly, as I mentioned above, I don't have any difficulty with the fact that "get married" might be good advice in certain contexts. The problem is that it is good *advice,* not Biblical command.



> "It is not good that the man should be alone." Marriage was provided for the preventing of fornication and for the mutual help and support that the one ought to have of the other. That some are able to function quite appropriately without that by no means implies that everyone can.



I believe that one can make strong argument that it is not good that the man should be married because of the entrance of sin in Genesis 3. Many of the punishments of the fall are directed precisely at mankind's experience in marriage. For example, Eve is punished with pain in childbirth, which is something that can only occur within marriage. Also, you have the strife and infighting in marriage in the second part of her punishment. In other words, it is as if the woman was made to be a helper for the man, but failed in that task when she led him into sin.

Of course, we as Christians would acknowledge that the only solution to this is the salvation and redemption of Christ. The ultimate solution to man not being alone is union with Christ in salvation, because it is there that we are no longer alone. The idea of God as our helper is all over the Hebrew Bible, and he is the only one who can truly deal with this loneliness, because he is the only one who will never fail as our helper.

Also, it is difficult to know what you mean by "function quite appropriately without that." I would say that the only thing that we need for holy living the Christian life is the word of God and the Holy Spirit in us, and the Christian community. If we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, how is it that God will not provide a way of escape when we are temped in areas of loneliness or fornication? In other words, "I am not married" is no justification for sexual sin.

God Bless,
Adam

---------- Post added at 03:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

Stargazer65,



> I don't believe it fair to equate a choice of pizza or chili, with a choice of whether or not to marry. Marriage is an institution given in Genesis 2 at creation. God didn't make us male and female to introduce an option to singleness, it is a part of our nature. The decision to marry or not is a serious business, one that should be approached with biblical wisdom and prayer. I see a lack of that attitude in many young Christians today, albeit not as bad as the rest of the world yet. Flippantly putting off marriage until they feel the time is right (i.e. after I'm done with the pleasures of the world).
> 
> I don't advocate any sort of investigation to determine whether people are avoiding marriage or not. I do however believe it is a duty to encourage young people to marry, if they have those desires.



First of all, I think that only looking at Genesis 2 is problematic. That doesn't take into account the affects of the fall upon marriage, and it also doesn't take into account our union with Christ as the ultimate cure for the fall. Hence, marriage would exist in this life to remind us that we are still here living in this fallen world, and are still looking forward to something greater, and singleness would remind us that our ultimate destiny is not union with a woman, but union with Christ. Hence, one can argue from the effects of the fall, and our union with Christ to singleness in this present life.

Also, notice the false dilemma in your last statement. Unless we command it, we are not encouraging it. I would say that one can encourage marriage as every bit as honorable a state as singleness, and point out that there are many good benefits to being married. Still, that doesn't mean that it is a Biblical commandment for anyone.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Philip

Peairtach said:


> It's probably difficult to assess whether another person is unduly delaying marriage, or whether he has good reasons for not getting married, so that a pastor can say, "You are guilty of undue delay."



Would you say that "I haven't met the right person yet" constitutes a sufficient reason?


----------



## py3ak

Hebrew Student said:


> I would say that those who are eunuchs from the womb of their mother are eunuchs who are born with some physical deformity. Hence, the three categories would be 1. those who are born with a birth defect, 2. Those who are castrated, 3. Those who have chosen to remain single in order to serve God in that state. Even John Calvin, who argued for a gift of continence, took this interpretation:



Is there a reason to take it of birth defects instead of something else? And is there a reason not to take the third option literally, a la Origen?


Hebrew Student said:


> I believe that one can make strong argument that it is not good that the man should be married because of the entrance of sin in Genesis 3. Many of the punishments of the fall are directed precisely at mankind's experience in marriage. For example, Eve is punished with pain in childbirth, which is something that can only occur within marriage. Also, you have the strife and infighting in marriage in the second part of her punishment. In other words, it is as if the woman was made to be a helper for the man, but failed in that task when she led him into sin.
> 
> Of course, we as Christians would acknowledge that the only solution to this is the salvation and redemption of Christ. The ultimate solution to man not being alone is union with Christ in salvation, because it is there that we are no longer alone. The idea of God as our helper is all over the Hebrew Bible, and he is the only one who can truly deal with this loneliness, because he is the only one who will never fail as our helper.
> 
> Also, it is difficult to know what you mean by "function quite appropriately without that." I would say that the only thing that we need for holy living the Christian life is the word of God and the Holy Spirit in us, and the Christian community. If we have the scriptures and the Holy Spirit, how is it that God will not provide a way of escape when we are temped in areas of loneliness or fornication? In other words, "I am not married" is no justification for sexual sin.



I am not sure if by making a case that it is good for the man not to marry you mean more than what Paul says about sparing them trouble or not. If you do mean more than that, I think you go too far. It is also Paul's direction that younger widows marry and bear children - and plainly that implies that someone else ought to be willing to marry them! And in that context, marriage is part of the remedy for sins they would otherwise be likely to fall into. Once _that_ contention is admitted, "undue delay of marriage" really ought to cease being an issue.

Of course being unmarried gives no excuse for sexual sin. But if it is a help to a younger widow in her battle against sin to be engaged in a calling appropriate to her with a husband and children, there is no reason to object to the common-sense view that marriage does, in fact, provide quite a helpful remedy against fornication as well.


----------



## Stargazer65

> First of all, I think that only looking at Genesis 2 is problematic. That doesn't take into account the affects of the fall upon marriage, and it also doesn't take into account our union with Christ as the ultimate cure for the fall. Hence, marriage would exist in this life to remind us that we are still here living in this fallen world, and are still looking forward to something greater, and singleness would remind us that our ultimate destiny is not union with a woman, but union with Christ. Hence, one can argue from the effects of the fall, and our union with Christ to singleness in this present life.



The fall has changed the quality of marriage but it doesn't change the importance of marriage. Mathew 19:4-5 "He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?" 
Also, the same command to "Be fruitful and multiply" is given both before and after the fall. It's difficult to see how that would be accomplished without marriage.



> Also, notice the false dilemma in your last statement. Unless we command it, we are not encouraging it. I would say that one can encourage marriage as every bit as honorable a state as singleness, and point out that there are many good benefits to being married. Still, that doesn't mean that it is a Biblical commandment for anyone.


 I don't think I implied anywhere that unless we command it, we are not encouraging it: Keep in mind that whether marriage is a duty or not is a sidebar issue. As I posted earlier:



> The purpose of the thread is not to pick on people who marry late, or single people, or those with appropriate reasons to delay. It should be assumed that everyone is following after God's will for their life, unless they state otherwise, or act in blatant violation of commandments. The purpose is to comment on whether you believe there is a problem with undue delay of marriage in the church, and why or why not. It is certainly valid to state that Christians have a responsibility to mature so that they can marry. That statment makes no unfair judgments of anyone, *it should be understood that marriage is not God's will for every single person*. It should be also understood that not everyone is able to marry, even if they desire to do so, for valid reasons.




---------- Post added at 05:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:51 AM ----------




P. F. Pugh said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably difficult to assess whether another person is unduly delaying marriage, or whether he has good reasons for not getting married, so that a pastor can say, "You are guilty of undue delay."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that "I haven't met the right person yet" constitutes a sufficient reason?
Click to expand...


From my point of view it would be sufficient. If someone said that to me, I would take it at face value. Now, if they were someone I knew a long time, and I suspected that they were making excuses, then I'd start to prod them gently. 
If that didn't work, then I'd turn their case over to the women who feel the need to matchmake. 

---------- Post added at 06:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 05:58 AM ----------




JBaldwin said:


> So I believe delay of marriage is a problem in the church. It's sounds like you just believe that my emphasis is on the wrong aspect (i.e. selfishness is the issue, not delay of marriage). Looking at things from a broad perspective that is probably a fair statement. But I am purposely focusing on the more narrow aspect of the effect of delay of marriage in the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had a very interesting conversation with an elderly minister yesterday on this subject. He mentioned that one of the problems of delaying marriage is that both women and men get busy "trying out" different ones to see who is the best for them. After trying out several people, they get confused and don't know what they want. This problem used to be primarily something observable outside the church. Now it's the thing to switch from one boyfriend/girlfriend to the next. Even if there is no sex or impropriety involved, this does become an issue.
Click to expand...


I agree, it's not a small deal. You develop deep friendships with members of the opposite sex that you can't maintain your whole life. Even without sex or impropriety, it causes the feeling of being bonded to multiple people in a way that was meant to be only with your spouse.


----------



## Hebrew Student

py3ak,



> Is there a reason to take it of birth defects instead of something else? And is there a reason not to take the third option literally, a la Origen?



I would say that the reason is, if you take that interpretation, you leave out those who are born with a birth defect. They are a kind of eunuch, to be sure, but they are not that way because they have some kind of gift of continence, nor are they that way because they have been made a eunuch by men, nor are they that way because they have literally made themselves eunuchs.



> I am not sure if by making a case that it is good for the man not to marry you mean more than what Paul says about sparing them trouble or not. If you do mean more than that, I think you go too far.



Well, if what you mean by sparing them the trouble is the infighting in marriage and the birth pangs that the woman will experience, then I think I can agree. Still, it does point out that there are troubles in marriage due to sin, and that is certainly parallel with the problems found in the statement "it is not good for the man to be alone."



> It is also Paul's direction that younger widows marry and bear children - and plainly that implies that someone else ought to be willing to marry them! And in that context, marriage is part of the remedy for sins they would otherwise be likely to fall into. Once that contention is admitted, "undue delay of marriage" really ought to cease being an issue.



Actually, look at Paul's context:

1 Timothy 5:11-15 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.

Notice how the context is this list that widows were apparently put onto [some say a list of honor; some say a list of service]. Hence, we are not dealing with virgins in the context. More than that, the context is not even dealing with all widows, but young widows who are prone to be gossips and busybodies. Hence, what Paul appears to be doing is connecting a young widow who has never engaged in this kind of behavior in her life, but now is doing so after her husband died to both her youth, and the death of her husband.

Consider the widow that has always had an intimate relationship with her husband, always desired her husband, and now has that relationship broken up by death. You no longer have your husband as a companion to talk to. You no longer have his physical and spiritual intimacy. That would, indeed, give the enemy an occasion for reproach, as Satan could easily cause such a person to start becoming a busybody in order to make up for what she has lost. Again, I think it goes back to the context of a previous marriage that has been broken up by death, and the difficulties involved in such a situation for younger widows.

Also, again, it is true that someone must marry them, but it is untrue that a *virgin* must marry them. Also, as far as undue delay of marriage, we are dealing with this in the context virgins, not in the context of widows and widowers. The issue is whether for *virgins* the Bible states that there is a sin of "undue delay of marriage."



> Of course being unmarried gives no excuse for sexual sin. But if it is a help to a younger widow in her battle against sin to be engaged in a calling appropriate to her with a husband and children, there is no reason to object to the common-sense view that marriage does, in fact, provide quite a helpful remedy against fornication as well.



I would say that there is a reason if the motivations are different. For example, the twelve year old who engages in sexual sin is not someone who we can call to marry as a "helpful remedy" against his sexual sin. The reason is that this young preteen is simply rebelling against the law of God. Getting married will do him no good, because his immaturity and his disregard for God's law will still be there.

If this is true of a twelve year old, why do we have reason to assume that it may not be true of a twenty-five year old? How will it remedy his sin when the sin will still be there? Also, worst of all, how can you assure that such a person will not cause damage to his wife and children by his sexual sin? We have to be careful that something that seems "common sense" is not, in fact, reductionistic. Sometimes something can seem obvious to us, when, in reality, we are not taking into account all of the factors that are involved.

All of this is not to say that "get married" may not be good advice for some virgins. The point is that we must examine their context to understand if it will be good advice. Also, it can never be exalted to the position of Biblical command since the Bible gives no such command for virgins. My concern is that, ignoring their context will cause more harm than good.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Stargazer65

> Also, as far as undue delay of marriage, we are dealing with this in the context virgins, not in the context of widows and widowers. The issue is whether for *virgins* the Bible states that there is a sin of "undue delay of marriage."



The context is single people, not necessarily virgins. I don't see any reason why the same concepts could not apply to widows or widowers. I believe that is merely happenstance, since it would be more common among young people who have not been married.

---------- Post added at 08:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 AM ----------




> If this is true of a twelve year old, why do we have reason to assume that it may not be true of a twenty-five year old? How will it remedy his sin when the sin will still be there? Also, worst of all, how can you assure that such a person will not cause damage to his wife and children by his sexual sin? We have to be careful that something that seems "common sense" is not, in fact, reductionistic. Sometimes something can seem obvious to us, when, in reality, we are not taking into account all of the factors that are involved.


Keep in mind we are not talking about people who have been involved in blatant sexual sin. We are talking about Godly young people who are able to marry, but may need encouragement to do so. I believe blatant sexual sin is a consequence of delaying marriage. If blatant sexual sin is already in the life of a single person, then we are taking the discussion down paths that were never intended in the OP.


----------



## Hebrew Student

> The fall has changed the quality of marriage but it doesn't change the importance of marriage. Mathew 19:4-5 "He answered, Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"
> Also, the same command to "Be fruitful and multiply" is given both before and after the fall. It's difficult to see how that would be accomplished without marriage.



We should be careful to not confuse issues. We must distinguish between the importance of marriage as an institution to a society, and the importance of an individual getting married. The two are not the same thing. I was actually responding to this:



> I don't believe it fair to equate a choice of pizza or chili, with a choice of whether or not to marry. Marriage is an institution given in Genesis 2 at creation. God didn't make us male and female to introduce an option to singleness, it is a part of our nature. The decision to marry or not is a serious business, one that should be approached with biblical wisdom and prayer.



You were specifically dealing with individuals when you introduced the way in which we were created. My point was that, although that is how we were created, sin has come in and complicated matters.

Also, I don't know you your citation of Matthew 19 is really relevant to the topic. Matthew 19 is about divorce, and whether or not divorce is permissible. Jesus said, "from the beginning it has not been this way," that is, that a man can divorce his wife. Jesus is going back to the way in which marriage was constructed [namely between one man and one woman], thus excluding divorce. Thus, Jesus is dealing with the structure of marriage, not what it is like to be married after the fall.

The point was that being single is something that comes about as a result of the fall and redemption. Hence, it is something that comes about after creation and the fall, because of the failure of woman as a helper, to remind us that our ultimate destiny is to be united to *Christ,* our ultimate helper, forever. Hence, I would say that it is grossly simplistic to go back to creation, and not recognize that who we are was affected by the fall, and by our redemption. We truly are new creatures in Christ Jesus, and that has to be taken into account.

Also, as far as "Be fruitful and multiply," I believe that is a covenant command. The command always appears in covenant contexts in the Pentateuch. Also, I would say that, in Genesis 1:28 that it is mankind as a whole that is commanded to be fruitful and multiply due to the usage of אדם as the antecedent of plural suffixes. Thus, at best what this would prove is that the having and raising of covenant children is one of the functions of the covenant community as a whole. Certainly, no one has denied that this is the case. Every covenant community must have people who are about this task. However, it is a gross overstatement to now say that a certain given individual is obligated to this task.

It sounds like you are leaping from extreme to extreme. It is either that there is a command for certain virgins to marry without delay, or no one marries. We recognize the importance of marriage, and thus claim that certain people must marry without delay, or we are not recognizing the importance of marriage. These are all false dilemmas.



> I don't think I implied anywhere that unless we command it, we are not encouraging it: Keep in mind that whether marriage is a duty or not is a sidebar issue. As I posted earlier:



First of all, I never said that you believe that *everyone* is commanded to marry. Indeed, even folks like Mohler make those kinds of distinctions. However, the position that there is such a thing as a sin of "delay of marriage" does, indeed, imply that some specific people *must* get married. The question would naturally stem from the fact that every Christian wants to mortify sin in their life. If there were such a sin as "delay of marriage," in which an individual Christian can engage, the way for that individual Christian to solve the problem would be to, obviously, get married. Hence, since all Christians are commanded to mortify sin, all Christians who are engaging in "undue delay of marriage" are commanded to get married.

God Bless,
Adam

---------- Post added at 07:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:02 AM ----------

Stargazer65,



> Keep in mind we are not talking about people who have been involved in blatant sexual sin. We are talking about Godly young people who are able to marry, but may need encouragement to do so. I believe blatant sexual sin is a consequence of delaying marriage. If blatant sexual sin is already in the life of a single person, then we are taking the discussion down paths that were never intended in the OP.



I think that, what I am pointing out, is that one cannot look into another person's heart, and see the reason why he is committing these sins. Is it out of blatant rebellion against God? Or, is it out of a genuine struggle with sin? And if it is out of a genuine struggle against sin, has the person progressed in their battle far enough that it would not cause harm to other people if they married? These are questions that show the complexity of the matter.

I think it also shows that we cannot just take commandments given to widows and widowers and apply them to virgins without seeing if the contexts are parallel. The death of a spouse at a young age produces struggles that I am sure most of us can only imagine. It is easy to see how Paul is relating these struggles to his commands. However, the number of qualifications that would have to be there if we were to apply this to a single person are such that, the only way we could accurately do so would be if we could look into their heart, which is impossible.

Thus, we can counsel them, and we can listen to their struggles, and try to apply scripture in the best way we can, given what we know of them and what they are telling us; however, we cannot make it an absolute Biblical command.

Also, to be honest, as a single person myself, when I see people giving things as commands that are exegetically tenuous, it doesn't encourage me to get married; it encourages me to stay away from marriage. You feel like you want to remain unmarried in order to protest. In dealing with this issue, I have repeatedly had to remain balanced, and recognize that because some people will bind marriage to the conscience of virgins without warrant, that does not mean that God might not be calling you to marriage. I have to serve God ultimately, and not simply overreact to an overreaction. However, I have met young men who say that, if this is the way Christian women are going to think today, then they would rather not get married at all. In other words, what I am saying is that you may be doing the opposite of what you are intending. You are intending to encourage people to get married by introducing this sin of "undue delay of marriage" to virgins, but you may be unnecessarily putting a stumbling block in their way.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## py3ak

Hebrew Student said:


> py3ak,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a reason to take it of birth defects instead of something else? And is there a reason not to take the third option literally, a la Origen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that the reason is, if you take that interpretation, you leave out those who are born with a birth defect. They are a kind of eunuch, to be sure, but they are not that way because they have some kind of gift of continence, nor are they that way because they have been made a eunuch by men, nor are they that way because they have literally made themselves eunuchs.
Click to expand...


Not necessarily: just as there might be multiple defects that would result in the same thing, so it could include more than just defects.



Hebrew Student said:


> I am not sure if by making a case that it is good for the man not to marry you mean more than what Paul says about sparing them trouble or not. If you do mean more than that, I think you go too far.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if what you mean by sparing them the trouble is the infighting in marriage and the birth pangs that the woman will experience, then I think I can agree. Still, it does point out that there are troubles in marriage due to sin, and that is certainly parallel with the problems found in the statement "it is not good for the man to be alone."
Click to expand...

Is the infighting what Paul meant?



Hebrew Student said:


> It is also Paul's direction that younger widows marry and bear children - and plainly that implies that someone else ought to be willing to marry them! And in that context, marriage is part of the remedy for sins they would otherwise be likely to fall into. Once that contention is admitted, "undue delay of marriage" really ought to cease being an issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, look at Paul's context:
> 
> 1 Timothy 5:11-15 But refuse to put younger widows on the list, for when they feel sensual desires in disregard of Christ, they want to get married, 12 thus incurring condemnation, because they have set aside their previous pledge. 13 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.
> 
> Notice how the context is this list that widows were apparently put onto [some say a list of honor; some say a list of service]. Hence, we are not dealing with virgins in the context. More than that, the context is not even dealing with all widows, but young widows who are prone to be gossips and busybodies. Hence, what Paul appears to be doing is connecting a young widow who has never engaged in this kind of behavior in her life, but now is doing so after her husband died to both her youth, and the death of her husband.
Click to expand...


Paul doesn't limit it to young widows who ARE doing this - he's applying it generally to young widows. Instead of being added to the church's rolls, and hence presumably to their financial burdens and perhaps being given responsibilities as well, he settles upon another calling as more generally suitable to young widows - remarriage.



Hebrew Student said:


> Consider the widow that has always had an intimate relationship with her husband, always desired her husband, and now has that relationship broken up by death. You no longer have your husband as a companion to talk to. You no longer have his physical and spiritual intimacy. That would, indeed, give the enemy an occasion for reproach, as Satan could easily cause such a person to start becoming a busybody in order to make up for what she has lost. Again, I think it goes back to the context of a previous marriage that has been broken up by death, and the difficulties involved in such a situation for younger widows.
> 
> Also, again, it is true that someone must marry them, but it is untrue that a *virgin* must marry them. Also, as far as undue delay of marriage, we are dealing with this in the context virgins, not in the context of widows and widowers. The issue is whether for *virgins* the Bible states that there is a sin of "undue delay of marriage."



Anyone who wishes to remain a virgin and realistically can do so is fine to remain in that condition - and that is exactly what the catechism says.



Hebrew Student said:


> Of course being unmarried gives no excuse for sexual sin. But if it is a help to a younger widow in her battle against sin to be engaged in a calling appropriate to her with a husband and children, there is no reason to object to the common-sense view that marriage does, in fact, provide quite a helpful remedy against fornication as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that there is a reason if the motivations are different. For example, the twelve year old who engages in sexual sin is not someone who we can call to marry as a "helpful remedy" against his sexual sin. The reason is that this young preteen is simply rebelling against the law of God. Getting married will do him no good, because his immaturity and his disregard for God's law will still be there.
> 
> If this is true of a twelve year old, why do we have reason to assume that it may not be true of a twenty-five year old? How will it remedy his sin when the sin will still be there? Also, worst of all, how can you assure that such a person will not cause damage to his wife and children by his sexual sin? We have to be careful that something that seems "common sense" is not, in fact, reductionistic. Sometimes something can seem obvious to us, when, in reality, we are not taking into account all of the factors that are involved.
Click to expand...

You can't make any guarantees about what damage other people will or will not cause; every mote of advice we give is given to people with radical problems who are capable of unspeakable evil.



Hebrew Student said:


> All of this is not to say that "get married" may not be good advice for some virgins. The point is that we must examine their context to understand if it will be good advice. Also, it can never be exalted to the position of Biblical command since the Bible gives no such command for virgins. My concern is that, ignoring their context will cause more harm than good.
> 
> God Bless,
> Adam



I think you may be missing the particularity of vocation. The one called to marriage must marry, just as the minister must preach the word or the mother must raise children. But it is not for us to define who is and is not called to marriage, but merely to give advice, according to our own callings and stations.


----------



## TimV

> Paul doesn't limit it to young widows who ARE doing this - he's applying it generally to young widows.



I think that's the key to everything on this thread. You can, with enough argumentation reduce anything to meaninglessness. And when the Scripture is clear and plain, why would you want to? Again, Adam, just an observation. I got much out of your posts.


----------



## Stargazer65

> I think that, what I am pointing out, is that one cannot look into another person's heart, and see the reason why he is committing these sins. Is it out of blatant rebellion against God? Or, is it out of a genuine struggle with sin? And if it is out of a genuine struggle against sin, has the person progressed in their battle far enough that it would not cause harm to other people if they married? These are questions that show the complexity of the matter.



You are needlessly complicating the matter. It is understood when we make vows that we are not marrying a perfect person. You may not realize that marriage often causes us to deal with sin issues that we may have formerly ignored when single (self-centeredness being one). Far from causing greater sin problems, part of why we marry is that it helps us grow in grace. Two are better than one in that regard. That is why we should not delay marriage. However, if someone can remain single, and grow in grace, they are free to do so.


----------



## Peairtach

P. F. Pugh said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's probably difficult to assess whether another person is unduly delaying marriage, or whether he has good reasons for not getting married, so that a pastor can say, "You are guilty of undue delay."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would you say that "I haven't met the right person yet" constitutes a sufficient reason?
Click to expand...


It sounds like a good reason to me.

But this point of view from Adam is taking things too far:


> I don't think you understand what I am saying. I am saying that no one *needs* a good reason to delay marriage in this sense anymore then they need a good reason to eat pizza for supper instead of chili and baked potatoes



Our Apostle gave us instruction on this subject, which emphasises a greater significance before God than whether to choose margherita or pepperoni.


----------



## Hebrew Student

py3ak,



> Not necessarily: just as there might be multiple defects that would result in the same thing, so it could include more than just defects.



I would say that this is difficult to hold contextually, as none of the other kinds of eunuchs are meant to be polysemous. For example, those who have been made eunuchs by men could hardly mean that men appointed this person to be a eunuch, even though they have the full capacity of marriage!



> Is the infighting what Paul meant?



Not sure. There is some exegetical debate about what Paul meant by the "present distress," and exactly how or if it relates to the trouble that is spoken of in the passage. My point was to say that I got this from exegeting Genesis 3:16, and its relationship to the context of Genesis 1-2. Hence, that is what Paul meant, that is fine with me, as it is consistent with how Genesis describes the effects of the fall on marriage. Still, Genesis 3:16 does mention strife in the marriage relationship, and it does mention it in connection with the fall.



> Paul doesn't limit it to young widows who ARE doing this - he's applying it generally to young widows. Instead of being added to the church's rolls, and hence presumably to their financial burdens and perhaps being given responsibilities as well, he settles upon another calling as more generally suitable to young widows - remarriage.



Not certain I would agree with that. Notice what Paul says:

1 Timothy 5:13-15 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and *give the enemy no occasion for reproach*; 15 *for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.* 

It seems like Paul's reasoning for this command is that some have already turned aside to Satan. The only thing I can infer from the context is that they have become busybodies and idle gossips. This is also the only sense I can make out of an "occasion for reproach," namely, that these women cannot handle being alone, and they have turned to gossiping. However, that temptation is the foundation of Paul's command to the widows.

Also, I understand the duties and the financial assistance. However, not all widows need financial assistance. If they have a large inheritance, or if they themselves have a strong, steady job, then, obviously, financial assistance would not be necessary; duties, as well, are things that can be given or not given. Also, I would take these present tenses in 5:13 to be gnomic presents, describing something that is generally true of young widows, but not something that is universally true. For example, the sentence "Black bears stand ten feet tall on their hind legs." That doesn't mean that *all* blackbears stand ten feet tall. You might find some that are nine and a half feet, and some that are ten and a half feet. The point is that this is a general characteristic of black bears. This can be especially triggered by a generic subject such as "widows" or "black bear."

The point is that the only thing I can see this passage commanding is that widows not be put on a list because of these tendencies that they have. However, the specific command for them to marry is in the context of the enemy's occasion for reproach, and the fact that many have gone off to follow Satan. The point seems to be, now that I look at the text closer, that marrying will keep you so busy with the affairs of the household, you won't have time to think about gossip!

So, in other words I would say that his stated purpose for the command as well as the context of the command itself would lead me to believe that he only wants this command applied in context where you have busybodies and gossip.



> Anyone who wishes to remain a virgin and realistically can do so is fine to remain in that condition - and that is exactly what the catechism says.



The problem is how to define someone who can "realistically can do so." Clearly, if the issue is sin, because we have the power of God through his Holy Spirit, everyone can be unmarried and not be forced to sin. The issue, as you said, is going to be more of their context, and what is the best advice given their context. However, again, that is more on the level of advice than Biblical command.



> You can't make any guarantees about what damage other people will or will not cause; every mote of advice we give is given to people with radical problems who are capable of unspeakable evil.



However, if you don't attack the root problem, you can just make it worse. For example, I am reading a book right now for my field education on ministering to people with the word, and the author points out that, if you have someone who comes to you with marital problems, you can't just give them tips to better communication. This is because, if the husband or the wife is controlling, they can begin to use those tips for manipulation. That is my point. Whenever we give advice, we must always attack the root problem, and there are many cases in which "get married" will not attack the root problem, and yes, can end up making things worse.



> I think you may be missing the particularity of vocation. The one called to marriage must marry, just as the minister must preach the word or the mother must raise children. But it is not for us to define who is and is not called to marriage, but merely to give advice, according to our own callings and stations.



The problem is that a person who is living a selfish lifestyle may not be called to marriage. Hence, if there is a problem of "delay of marriage" in this sense, there is no way it would be externally discernible. The reason is because you would have to say "All people with the characteristic x have the calling to marriage." However, there is not anything externally that one could point to in order to say for sure that this person is called to marriage. That is why I said it is more an attitude of following God wherever he leads, whether to marriage or singleness.

Also, I should point out that, according to the apostle Paul, we are to do all things to the glory of God. Paul views all of life, even our eating, as service to God. Hence, I don't understand how the observation that this is vocational is helpful.

TimV,



> I think that's the key to everything on this thread. You can, with enough argumentation reduce anything to meaninglessness. And when the Scripture is clear and plain, why would you want to? Again, Adam, just an observation. I got much out of your posts.



The problem is, Tim, that the command would not be meaningless. If a woman lost her husband, and shortly thereafter, she started engaging in gossip, I am sure people would start confronting her. Her pastor would then bring her in, and discuss her reasons for continuously committing this sin. If she tells him that her sin is directly related to the death of her husband, then, very clearly, you would have a direct application of Paul's command. In such a situation, he should tell her to remarry so that she does not give the enemy an occasion for reproach.



> It is understood when we make vows that we are not marrying a perfect person.



I never said otherwise. However, there are certain things that are so serious that they can do tons of damage to another person. I have seen it; there are many people I have met who are hardened against marriage and the opposite sex because they married someone who was addicted to something, was abusive or controlling, etc. Unlike your post says, marriage did not cause these folks to deal with sin issues that they formerly ignored when single. Their self-centeredness ended up ruining the marriage, and hurting other people along the way.

In other words, I would say that the only factor in growth in grace is the work of Christ on the cross, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Certainly I believe God can use another person like a spouse, but I would say that necessarily connecting sanctification to marriage is very dangerous theologically. I have seen some people who take this view, and they have almost a Roman Catholic sacramental view of marriage in the end. The reason is because, once you connect marriage necessarily to sanctification, now you have to argue that a person would not be sanctified without marriage. The problem is that the completion of the work of sanctification in our lives is made inevitable by the death of Christ on the cross, and is independent of whether or not we marry. Thus, it deeply concerns me when I hear people start talking this way.

Not only that, but I can point to plenty of immature married people. Again, I don't really now that marital status is the issue in sanctification. I, again, think that it is a matter of seeking to live your life for God in all things. People who are truly devoted to God will mature every bit as fast as a married person who is devoted. It all, again, goes back to the heart.

Peairtach,



> Our Apostle gave us instruction on this subject, which emphasises a greater significance before God than whether to choose margherita or pepperoni.



What text are you referring to? I agree that it is a greater significance, in the sense that one will affect your life more, but I don't see any evidence whatsoever that the scriptures give any *moral* significance to whether a virgin remains single or gets married. In a moral and ethical sense, whether one chooses to get married is very much like whether to choose margherita or pepperoni.

BTW, thanks all of you for this discussion. It is actually nice to be able to discuss this issue with someone without people engaging in name calling.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## py3ak

Hebrew Student said:


> 1 Timothy 5:13-15 At the same time they also learn to be idle, as they go around from house to house; and not merely idle, but also gossips and busybodies, talking about things not proper to mention. 14 Therefore, I want younger widows to get married, bear children, keep house, and give the enemy no occasion for reproach; 15 for some have already turned aside to follow Satan.



Briefly, that's the whole point of what Paul is trying to prevent _by laying down general advice_. It is younger widows, generally, not _these younger widows only_.

It is not realistic to think that everyone can ignore certain provisions for avoiding sin and still avoid the sin they serve to control. Prudence determines that we shall not needlessly add to the severity of any struggle against sin. There is a wide difference between saying "You have an excuse for sexual sin because you are unmarried" and saying "Marriage can be a helpful preventive to fornication." It may be that lack of prudence is not often the root problem; but it is a sufficient aggravating factor in so many areas that it is worthy of being addressed. Obviously a cure for disease depends on addressing the root; but symptoms and side effects sometimes need to be ameliorated immediately as well.

I don't understand your affirmation that nothing external points to a person being called to marriage or not. You've already admitted that certain birth defects might point to them not being called in that way. A lack of need/desire could also point to them not being called. An absence of opportunity would also point to them not being called to that at the moment. So when you have the opposite of those points, when you have an external and an internal suitability conjoined with opportunity, that seems to be a call to marriage as much as desire, gifts, and church confirmation and opportunity verify a call to the ministry.



Hebrew Student said:


> BTW, thanks all of you for this discussion. It is actually nice to be able to discuss this issue with someone without people engaging in name calling.


I was about to start, but you kind of rained on that parade.


----------



## Stargazer65

> However, there are certain things that are so serious that they can do tons of damage to another person. I have seen it; there are many people I have met who are hardened against marriage and the opposite sex because they married someone who was addicted to something, was abusive or controlling, etc. Unlike your post says, marriage did not cause these folks to deal with sin issues that they formerly ignored when single. Their self-centeredness ended up ruining the marriage, and hurting other people along the way.



This is an extreme situation. This issue in my OP is not about putting broken people into marriages to fix them. We are talking about people who are following God.



> In other words, I would say that the only factor in growth in grace is the work of Christ on the cross, and the work of the Holy Spirit. Certainly I believe God can use another person like a spouse, but I would say that necessarily connecting sanctification to marriage is very dangerous theologically. I have seen some people who take this view, and they have almost a Roman Catholic sacramental view of marriage in the end. The reason is because, once you connect marriage necessarily to sanctification, now you have to argue that a person would not be sanctified without marriage. The problem is that the completion of the work of sanctification in our lives is made inevitable by the death of Christ on the cross, and is independent of whether or not we marry. Thus, it deeply concerns me when I hear people start talking this way.



The Holy Spirit works through means. This is not connecting sancification to marriage or taking a sacramental view of it. Part of that means is Godly fellowship. I'm sure you do not believe that we are meant to grow in isolation. You would not cut yourself off from the fellowship of the church, or fellow Christians and expect that growth would not be impeded. For the majority of Christians, a marriage partner is an essential part of fellowship and encouragement. Although all may not need and desire that level of companionship, the scriptures make it clear that it is a _good _thing, not a _neutral_ thing.

---------- Post added at 01:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:17 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Hebrew Student said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, thanks all of you for this discussion. It is actually nice to be able to discuss this issue with someone without people engaging in name calling.
> 
> 
> 
> I was about to start, but you kind of rained on that parade.
Click to expand...


That's a funny.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

However much we affirm marriage, find it good according to Scripture, think of it as the typical and quite normal (even the majority) of lives in the world; we have to be tremendously careful not to err on the other side. And any affirmation of the goodness and appropriateness of marriage that does not account for its essential _voluntariness_, but instead turns it into a "law" of sorts, has crossed the limits, and falsely binds the conscience.

By "voluntary," I do not mean to despise societies that rely on arranged marriages, though those too must not violate true moral norms. But we must not turn the medieval oddity of a law that reduces the estate of marriage to a concession to the less-spiritual, into a new law (no less supposedly based in Truth than the former) that turns the whole attitude on its head and raises marriage to a "more-spiritual" condition.

Adam's concern (as I know, from following his online interactions elsewhere) is with the latter. His points may not be _directly_ in opposition to several points made here. But his contention: that our own arguments in favor of whatever point we are making must be securely founded, and avoid tendentious and hasty conclusions--is surely true. We do ourselves no good service by adopting a new law (or what might easily be construed as such) in defense of an admittedly sound principle.


----------



## py3ak

Contra_Mundum said:


> However much we affirm marriage, find it good according to Scripture, think of it as the typical and quite normal (even the majority) of lives in the world; we have to be tremendously careful not to err on the other side. And any affirmation of the goodness and appropriateness of marriage that does not account for its essential voluntariness, but instead turns it into a "law" of sorts, has crossed the limits, and falsely binds the conscience.



Are you taking an exception to the WLC?


----------



## Grimmson

py3ak said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> However much we affirm marriage, find it good according to Scripture, think of it as the typical and quite normal (even the majority) of lives in the world; we have to be tremendously careful not to err on the other side. And any affirmation of the goodness and appropriateness of marriage that does not account for its essential voluntariness, but instead turns it into a "law" of sorts, has crossed the limits, and falsely binds the conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you taking an exception to the WLC?
Click to expand...


I dont think he is or needs to take an exception here for Q139. Instead, he is applying the much needed applied wisdom when it comes to marriage. Particularly, it being transformed into a new law for everyone, which should not be bounded on everyone because not everyone is called to be married.


----------



## Stargazer65

Grimmson said:


> Instead, he is applying the much needed applied wisdom when it comes to marriage. Particularly, it being transformed into a new law for everyone, which should not be bounded on everyone because not everyone is called to be married.



I'm not sure I fully understand what particular new law has people concerned. Are you being hypothetical, or do you think my OP itself already goes to far? Give an example please.

Also, it would be helpful if you state that you agree or disagree with the WLC on that point, as Adam did, and why. That way we know if you disagree with the WLC itself on that point, or just interpret it differently. It gets confusing if that is not clear.


----------



## Peairtach

> Also, it would be helpful if you state that you agree or disagree with the WLC on that point, as Adam did, and why. That way we know if you disagree with the WLC itself on that point, or just interpret it differently. It gets confusing if that is not clear.



I wouldn't want to disagree with the WLC. The command is clearly first of all to those Christians and non-Christians already in a relationship who are delaying getting married.

If there is a general instruction to Christians and non-Christians there would also have to be an explanation of the gift of continency. 



> undue delay of marriage


 is wrong for


> those that have not the gift of continency



Who are those that do not have, or do have, the gift of continency? Is this an absence of sexual desire and felt need to have female company, or is it having such desires under self-control?


----------



## Stargazer65

Peairtach said:


> I wouldn't want to disagree with the WLC. The command is clearly first of all to those Christians and non-Christians already in a relationship who are delaying getting married.



I agree. It is for those in relationships, which is why I highlighted the prevalence of pre-marital sex. The thread kind of detoured into a sidebar issue when we started discussing single and unattached people.



> Who are those that do not have, or do have, the gift of continency? Is this an absence of sexual desire and felt need to have female company, or is it having such desires under self-control?



It would be both in my opinion. I mentioned a missionary who decided he was able to put off seeking a mate, because he could serve better as a single person. He still had desires, but they were under control. Twenty years later he married, because he desired it, and felt it would be a benefit to him as a Christian.

I think there are two biblical choices that the WLC implies:
1. I can serve God better as a single person right now.
2. I can serve God better as a married person right now.

Neither of these entails a new law.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

py3ak said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> However much we affirm marriage, find it good according to Scripture, think of it as the typical and quite normal (even the majority) of lives in the world; we have to be tremendously careful not to err on the other side. And any affirmation of the goodness and appropriateness of marriage that does not account for its essential voluntariness, but instead turns it into a "law" of sorts, has crossed the limits, and falsely binds the conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you taking an exception to the WLC?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why you would even ask me, Ruben. Can you spell out for me how you think something I wrote (@ #93) might contradict the Standards?

The (OPC) prooftexts for WLC A.139 at the point "undue delay of marriage," contain these:


> m. *1 Cor. 7:7–9*. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn. *Gen. 38:26*. And Judah acknowledged them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.


The first text addresses what Calvin calls "the neglect of remedy." Such neglect is a "tempting of God." There are some persons who are evidently not called to a single state, and who ought to be married, and may be, but for some reason refrain, foolishly, and do not take to the married state, and they "burn" (or needlessly risk it). Further, Calvin wisely observes, "many are stung with fleshly desires, who, nevertheless, do not require forthwith to have recourse to marriage." In other words, not every person tempted by lust is by that token bound for the altar, lest he be found disobedient. One needs ever to ask the question of those who might be married, and are not, "why not?" If it is a delay without basis, and this delay is making a foothold for the devil, then a further delay is "undue," and contributing to new sins.

In the second instance, the party (Judah) identified as guilty has the power to *forbid* marriage to certain persons who otherwise might, and perhaps ought to, be married. In other words, the divines are concerned with curbing authorities (family, church, state, or other) who for biblically indefensible reasons, or for no good reason, forbid the lawful marriage of persons who otherwise could be married, and presumably who desire it.

Thus, I don't think this particular observation concerning the will of God has to do with whether a person has a "duty" to marry, strictly speaking. It corrects those who are restraining from a marriage that is (in that particular case) the natural right. Taking the unlawful restraint off doesn't automatically imply a "duty" to marry. It is enough to now have the "freedom" to marry, a different concept.

I'll add that I see 1Cor.7:9 contains the apostolic imperative. If the conditions are just as described, then the counsel is applicable. But I would still deny a general "duty" to marry.


----------



## Grimmson

Stargazer65 said:


> Grimmson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Instead, he is applying the much needed applied wisdom when it comes to marriage. Particularly, it being transformed into a new law for everyone, which should not be bounded on everyone because not everyone is called to be married.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure I fully understand what particular new law has people concerned. Are you being hypothetical, or do you think my OP itself already goes to far? Give an example please.
> 
> Also, it would be helpful if you state that you agree or disagree with the WLC on that point, as Adam did, and why. That way we know if you disagree with the WLC itself on that point, or just interpret it differently. It gets confusing if that is not clear.
Click to expand...

Kevin, I am in agreement on 139 concerning undue marriage; I may not be in relation to dancing. I would need to check on the historical context of what they mean by dancing. If it was dancing provocatively, then yes; if it is dancing in general then no. By the way, I am not a dancer. I say this because I know of plenty of old Baptist that reject all forms of dancing; of course that for another thread for another time.

The point of my previous post here was to defend and briefly reinforce what Bruce said since not everyone is called to be married. The “new law” that we are speaking of is the requirement of everyone in our churches to be married; which granted most people in the church should be, depending of course on age. Marriage is a creational ordinance of God that will not disappear until after the end of this age; therefore it is still binding as a whole towards church, but not towards every individual of the church. We can see that this is not applied to everyone based on what our Lord says in Matthew 19:12:


> “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from [their] mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”


So you see to force someone to marriage would actually go against what Jesus himself would accept; and thus creating a new law of Christian Pharisaical thinking that works contrary to scripture itself. We are not to bind to conscience that in which scripture does not bind, in fact if scripture gives freedom here then we must recognize it. 

This requirement of everyone being married is what Bruce was referring to. Of course that is one extreme, the other is doing nothing of those who are engaged in a prolonged relationship with the opposite sex that have no intention of marriage soon (in the near future, if ever). This is the other side of the spectrum that Q139 deals with directly. For in this case we do see two individuals interacting with the opposite sex in a way that will produce the sin that the question is dealing with. I hate to say it, but many times the modern church pushes are young people to commit adultery with the opposite sex, because of the way we engage in their education in the home and in Christian colleges/seminaries; whereby the young are not prepared for marriage by their families and the church when they reach that age to be married and the young are encouraged to place marriage aside for educational pursuits. In these situations, especially considering the hormones of the young, churches (including those that hold to Q139 of the WLC) need to revaluate their focus and priorities for the sake of the young members of the church. This would include more of an individual effort to know and provide care for all the young members of the body for positive and encouraging growth.


----------



## py3ak

Contra_Mundum said:


> I'm not sure why you would even ask me, Ruben. Can you spell out for me how you think something I wrote (@ #93) might contradict the Standards?



Because you were defending Adam who stated his own disagreement with the WLC - I wanted to see how far you kept company with the view he propounded. I agreed with your post, but thought it would be good to have that precision. Since you hold that there are people evidently not called to a single state, I don't have anything to disagree with you about. 
I'm sorry if that came across as a challenge - it was meant only to clarify.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ruben,
I know Adam has chosen an alternate set of Standards, in order to avoid contentions on this topic. I want to affirm Adam's view, so far as it is biblical, because I also see objections raised to his view that are unsound. He might be able to affirm everything I said in my post, with the exception (memory serving?) that Paul's referent, 1Cor.7:9, is specifically to "unmarried widows" rather than to both "unmarried" (i.e., never married) and "widows." I take the latter.

I have the advantage of knowing Adam personally, knowing some of the battles he's been engaged in; and also being a somewhat dispassionate observer, not involved in those fights. I know where he's coming from. There are people out there who are *militant* concerning marriage, and in favor of a presumed "duty" to marry. These are some angry people, and many of them AREN'T married (I dare say) because if they were, they'd be impossible partners. Some are men angry at women who've said "no thanks," and who may still be unmarried. Others are women, angry because they claim they aren't being courted and wooed and wed because men aren't stepping up to their "duty."

Many of these people say that they want to follow the Lord's dictates in marriage, and they are NOT in fornication the meanwhile; and because they want to fulfill their "duty" they need other single-persons willing to do "theirs." They really do believe that the reason they aren't married is largely the problem that certain of their fellow believers fail to acknowledge God's command (Gen.1:28) has his name attached. They aren't "burning" (in the Pauline sense); they just know they aren't called to singleness because they want the blessings of the breast and of the womb; they want the body of a husband/wife to comfort them; they want the grace of life. And SOMEONE is denying them. It is their RIGHT to be married, because they WANT to be married, because it is a DUTY to be married (except for a few, under limited circumstances). Their big problem is being "sinned against."

And not just these sorts of people are drumming the drums for a duty to marry. There are some others, consistently or not (for example, Adam has addressed certain statements Mohler has made or defended), who are bold to say to their congregants, or to seminarians, "You men are sinning by not asking one of these young ladies out on a date, and hurrying to the altar." I can personally recall a pastor of one large church, having personal knowledge of some going-on-40 wallflower's private agony over not being married, using his bully pulpit to call for some (presumably) age-appropriate man to step up and take this woman. It was an attempt at pressure-tactics on a certain demographic among his listeners--in the pews or over the airwaves--to cause one of them to feel the "call of God" and do his "duty" by this dear lady.

These leaders do not know what is "best" for the generality of the young women. And for all they know, the generality of the men (who appear to be slow in this matter) are among a larger-than-typical number of young men in the next generation who could be called to the life of single-service, ala Apostle Paul. They do not know.

I do not think it is defensible to say to men or women, "You are unsure, or mistaken to think you are called to singleness, but I know." I don't think it is possible to properly urge the command of Gen.1:28/9:1 on any particular person or couple. We might as well agree that our moment is correlative to the "current crisis" (1Cor.7:26), and urge everyone to "remain as they are." Why not? None of then initial conditions obtain exactly; they require application in our time. I would be more willing to consider that arranged marriages are the way to go, than I would be to command the young people to marry unless they found an legitimate escape.

As a pastor, I may find that someone I counsel needs the particular command of 1Cor.7:9. I apply that text to him/her, to the best of my ability. Consider the issue: should he just start asking all the singles around him? Is there a person he's involved with already? Is that person a professing believer? Should he investigate the mail-order-bride industry? Doesn't his case call for prayer for the mate "answering" his true need to materialize? So that he may obey the will of God?

But a case does not a universal law make. And that is the "binding of conscience" I am concerned about. A man that "finds" a wife finds a good thing. To marry is natural. It is a freedom. It should be encouraged, whenever lawful and expedient. But the only guilt a man should feel is when he knows he is sinning--against himself or against another person.


----------



## Stargazer65

> There are people out there who are militant concerning marriage, and in favor of a presumed "duty" to marry. These are some angry people, and many of them AREN'T married (I dare say) because if they were, they'd be impossible partners. Some are men angry at women who've said "no thanks," and who may still be unmarried. Others are women, angry because they claim they aren't being courted and wooed and wed because men aren't stepping up to their "duty."
> 
> Many of these people say that they want to follow the Lord's dictates in marriage, and they are NOT in fornication the meanwhile; and because they want to fulfill their "duty" they need other single-persons willing to do "theirs." They really do believe that the reason they aren't married is largely the problem that certain of their fellow believers fail to acknowledge God's command (Gen.1:28) has his name attached. They aren't "burning" (in the Pauline sense); they just know they aren't called to singleness because they want the blessings of the breast and of the womb; they want the body of a husband/wife to comfort them; they want the grace of life. And SOMEONE is denying them. It is their RIGHT to be married, because they WANT to be married, because it is a DUTY to be married (except for a few, under limited circumstances). Their big problem is being "sinned against."
> 
> And not just these sorts of people are drumming the drums for a duty to marry. There are some others, consistently or not (for example, Adam has addressed certain statements Mohler has made or defended), who are bold to say to their congregants, or to seminarians, "You men are sinning by not asking one of these young ladies out on a date, and hurrying to the altar." I can personally recall a pastor of one large church, having personal knowledge of some going-on-40 wallflower's private agony over not being married, using his bully pulpit to call for some (presumably) age-appropriate man to step up and take this woman. It was an attempt at pressure-tactics on a certain demographic among his listeners--in the pews or over the airwaves--to cause one of them to feel the "call of God" and do his "duty" by this dear lady.
> 
> These leaders do not know what is "best" for the generality of the young women. And for all they know, the generality of the men (who appear to be slow in this matter) are among a larger-than-typical number of young men in the next generation who could be called to the life of single-service, ala Apostle Paul. They do not know.



I've never been exposed to that side of the fence. So I can understand why someone exposed to that environment would be cautious about what I am saying. My experience in youth was towards the opposite, such that singleness is heralded as a more spiritual state. If you thought about marriage before 25 you were ruining your ability to do God's work.

However, my OP was not about a duty to marry or a duty to be single, it is about a lack of motivation to marry when the Lord is leading in that direction. The world is promoting the putting off of marriage, as well as alternatives to marriage. I think there is a problem that young people in the church are following the world's advice that you need to extend your childhood into your late 20's. Those that could and should marry, have bought into a false belief that late marriage is somehow better than early marriage. Usually the arguments are things like: You will be more mature, you will be better off financially, etc... So marriage is somehow seen as a burden to the young, instead of a blessing.

I believe we were meant to mature together, not wait until we reach a supposed maturity. Finances are more a matter of how you handle money than how much you have.


> Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him."


 The curse of waiting is oftentimes unfulfilled desires, development of selfishness, waste of resources, loss of Godly seed. Sometimes people who wait too long to marry have trouble shifting from singleness to the married state. This is a general observation, it's not a matter of giving a command to individual people.


----------



## pianoman

I most certainly agree that a delay of marriage is a problem in the church. I have noticed this, and I believe it is caused by our materialism. Everyone wants a degree and money before they get married and ultimately commit. And the men hold on to the girl until they are ready. I get pretty fired up about it. And of course, the guy and girl don't want to get married, but they have premarital sex. They want the benefits it seems of marriage without the commitment of marriage. And what surprises me is that their parents don't want them to get married in college or whatever, but they seem to be ok with them probably being active sexually. This is why I married my wife while still in my Junior year in college. We could make it financially with us both working, and I just feel like it is wrong to date for a long period of time without commitment. Although their may be different opinions on this verse I Cor. 1:9 "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." I think this is what Paul was speaking of here. I would rather be struggling a little financially and working hard than to know I am using my girl yet not committing to her. The only other option is to not "date" until you are older and financially stable, but then your like 28, and I'm just not that kind of person that wants to be alone. lol Ok. I will stop with my soap box.


----------



## Weston Stoler

zach on his


----------



## pianoman

You should agree with me, Weston. It is predestined


----------



## Stargazer65

pianoman said:


> I most certainly agree that a delay of marriage is a problem in the church. I have noticed this, and I believe it is caused by our materialism. Everyone wants a degree and money before they get married and ultimately commit. And the men hold on to the girl until they are ready. I get pretty fired up about it. And of course, the guy and girl don't want to get married, but they have premarital sex. They want the benefits it seems of marriage without the commitment of marriage. And what surprises me is that their parents don't want them to get married in college or whatever, but they seem to be ok with them probably being active sexually. This is why I married my wife while still in my Junior year in college. We could make it financially with us both working, and I just feel like it is wrong to date for a long period of time without commitment. Although their may be different opinions on this verse I Cor. 1:9 "But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." I think this is what Paul was speaking of here. I would rather be struggling a little financially and working hard than to know I am using my girl yet not committing to her. The only other option is to not "date" until you are older and financially stable, but then your like 28, and I'm just not that kind of person that wants to be alone. lol Ok. I will stop with my soap box.



It sounds like you made a wise choice in your case. That's exactly the kind of situation where I think the church doesn't use biblical wisdom. Oftentimes we discourage young people from doing what you did, thinking we are somehow doing them a favor. In doing so we're going against what is the clear teaching of 1 Cor 7:9, that getting married may be the best choice. 

It is not a neutral choice as if it doesn't matter. One choice is better than the other for each person. I think Adam's contention (earlier in this thread) was that you cannot say that marrying in college would be the best choice for everyone, to which I would agree. My contention is that you cannot tell people that waiting is the best choice for everyone, and I think Adam would agree with that also. But I think the latter situation is the problem in the church, not the former.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Kevin,
My response to yours would be that the Standards really aren't addressing the "wisdom" question that you seem to be addressing, when it points to the SIN of "undue delay of marriage." I have trued to explain what the divines were saying.


Stargazer65 said:


> My experience in youth was towards the opposite, such that singleness is heralded as a more spiritual state.


I agree that this would be a problem. Call it "The New Monasticism." It was an error before, and it is an error now. The oddity we have today is a "turning on its head" of that old _law_ of the spiritual-superiority of the single estate, by replacing it with the new _law_ of the spiritual-superiority of the married estate. There is error to be shunned in either direction. There is NO (general) duty to be married, just as there is NO (general) duty to be single--certain exceptions/allowances/concessions made by either side.

I could be persuaded by you that there is a negative trend toward marriage, an unfortunate "discouragement" for early-marriage, etc. I haven't seen it, exactly, in my circles, or in our churches. But I admit my experience is limited. I wouldn't want to "discourage" early marriage; but neither would I want to "discourage" waiting on marriage, if indeed waiting is what is called for in some case--or even in a majority of cases where I might be called on to minister. It is just as foolish to decide in advance to default to counseling "not waiting" as it would be to have a default setting in the other direction. Such a rule, it seems to me, has little awareness of the delicate nature of pastoral ministry.

As I indicated, I think this is not a matter that can easily be subsumed under a "sin" category. It is a "wisdom" category. And such categories are a challenge to Christians who want to live in a very black-and-white world. Many Christians crave a "flowchart" for the Christian life. Many people have tried to turn the Bible into such a tool, or tried their hand at a casuistry register--one that ends up looking an awful lot like laws, for everyone.


Stargazer65 said:


> The curse of waiting is oftentimes unfulfilled desires, development of selfishness, waste of resources, loss of Godly seed. Sometimes people who wait too long to marry have trouble shifting from singleness to the married state. This is a general observation, it's not a matter of giving a command to individual people.


And as I think Adam made plain already: everyone of these admittedly *sage* observations of yours has an equally legitimate counterpart; another argument from the field of wisdom's observations and ways that makes the opposite case. Can you admit that? Even if you don't agree that this _hour_ is the time and place?

I think your post 107 pretty much makes the same point. So, we seem to be much in agreement.


----------



## Stargazer65

Rev. Buchanan,
I accept your expanation of the Standards, you know more about them then me. Sometimes I misunderstand the context or wording. That being the case, it's fair to say I mistakenly applied the Standard to a problem that it wasn't intended to address. I'll be more careful about that in the future. So I admit that I agree that this falls into a wisdom category. If we are not wise in the decision, it is likely to cause sin.

I frequently used the term "Undue Delay of Marriage" because I thought it an apt description of the trend I've seen. But I could just as easily call it "unwisely putting off marriage" to avoid confusing it with the sin that Q139 points out.

So let me say that I see a problem with the church unwisely putting off marriage. I think people are doing it for the wrong reasons in most cases. If a young christian couple desired to get married to avoid fornication, wordly counselors would tell them to wait because that is not a good reason to marry. I believe most Christians automatically default to that same reasoning, without regard to what God says on the matter.

Sometimes we expect that they should have x,y, and z (insert career, schooling, and savings) before marriage. Sometimes I think that we have too pietistic a view of marriage. As if having and wanting to properly fulfill sexual desires in marriage makes someone less spiritual. So if we tell them to wait, and they end up in sexual sin, we blame it on their sinful heart without regarding that we may have unwisely talked them into putting off marriage.

I agree with Adam that this is not the one-size-fits-all answer for everyone. There are equally valid reasons why we could advise to put off marriage.

What about someone who says they want to remain single in life for the sake of avoiding the difficulties of marriage? If they can do that and remain pure, fine. I don't see anything in the scripture to forbid it, and the standards allow it. But I'd encourage them to pray about it, Paul's case is unusual, people are more apt to fall into impurity when they are single. I don't think it's because marriage is more spiritual, it's just a practical result of sexual fulfillment, companionship, and accountability to each other. Staying single is a serious business, just as much so as marriage. I'd remind them of the blessings they might be giving up, not just now, but in the future (possible children, and grandchildren in their old age). They need to count the cost of the decision, and if they prayerfully do so, and believe God wants them to be single, that's great. I just don't want them to make a flippant decision based on what the world does. 

So because of my thoughts on the matter, I got a little excited when Adam compared the decision to planning dinner. Maybe I'm making it sound too urgent, I realize that deciding to be single in life today doesn't lock you into a vow of single life tomorrow.


----------

