Posted on 05/29/2004 2:17:57 PM PDT by NYer
Another simplistic linguistic literalist. You are fairly ignorant of Scripture. St. Paul's instruction to Timothy was not absolute in that only married men be selected. After all, you conveniently omitted, St. Paul himself was celibate and wrote in Scripture, which you also omitted, that celibacy was the preferred state.
Paul was an apostle, not a local church leader. There is a difference. Celebacy is never mentioned as the preferred state for a local church leader. 1 Tim 3, in requiring the elder to be a husband is absolute, and it is repeated in Titus. In Timothy, Paul later says, "These things teach and command."
As Jesus said to the Pharisees, "By your traditions, you have nullified the commands of God.
In St. Paul's counsel in 1 Timothy 3, there is no absolute qualification that a bishop must be married, despite your claim to the contrary.
"It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher," 1 Timothy 3:2
'ut quod apostoli docuerunt, et ipsa servavit antiquitas nos quoque custodiamus'
Since Peter was married, and the Levites were married, you are the one has failed to do the research.
"Since Peter was married, and the Levites were married, you are the one has failed to do the research."
Luke 18: 28 Then Peter said, "We have given up our possessions and followed you." 29 He said to them, "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30 who will not receive [back] an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come."
Similar quotations can also be found in MATTHEW 19: 27 –29, and MARK 10: 28 – 31. Christ rewards "an overabundant return" to those who give up their wives and families for the sake of the kingdom of God.
Also, in Luke 14: 26 "If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even to his own life, he cannot be my disciple. 27 Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.
It is interesting that both quotations mention the word 'wife' but not 'husband.'
Also in Luke 9: 61 And another said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first let me say farewell to my family at home." 62 [To him] Jesus said, "No one who sets a hand to the plow and looks to what was left behind is fit for the kingdom of God."
As christians, we ought to follow the teaching of Christ. To love someone, you always do the thing that pleases him/her most.
Please read post #25. Thanks
But why leave out verse 26?
1 Corinthians 7:26 I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.
It seems obvious that there was some reason at that time that Paul would recommend celibacy. Celibacy is always an option but not a necessity.
"Give up" is a poor translation. Jesus spoke of leaving (temporarily) for missions trips, as Peter did. He then returned home to his family. The Lord's commandment in 1 Cor 7 forbids divorce.
‘"Give up" is a poor translation.’
I quoted the verses from the New American Bible. Luke 18, 28 is quoted as ‘Then Peter said, “We have given up our possessions ---”’ and verse 29: “--- there is no one who has given up house or wife ---“
“Jesus spoke of leaving (temporarily) for missions trips, as Peter did. He then returned home to his family.”
Is this your interpretation of verses Luke18, 28-30? Or some other biblical verses lead you to this idea? If so, please share the verses with us.
“The Lord's commandment in 1 Cor 7 forbids divorce.”
I honestly do not know exactly how Peter and the other apostles treated their wives. I only know that Peter said “ WE have given up our possessions and followed you” and Jesus responded as described in Luke 18, 28-30; Matthew 19,27–29; and Mark 10,28-31.
Without quoting the entire four gospels, let me answer your question. If you put the four gospels together, you will find Jesus and his disciples made several missions trips. He did not have one, long 3 to 4 year travel itinerary. Peter "gave up" his wife, each time, to take these trips. He didn't permanently abandon her. For example, after one of the early travels, Jesus and his disciples returned to Peter's house, where Jesus healed Peter's mother in law. Mark 1:17-21.
The concept of permanent abandonment is unscriptural, since we are told in Timothy to care for "our own" widows. Such abandonment would be tatamount to creating abandoned widows.
“He did not have one, long 3 to 4 year travel itinerary. Peter "gave up" his wife, each time, to take these trips. He didn't permanently abandon her. For example, after one of the early travels, Jesus and his disciples returned to Peter's house, where Jesus healed Peter's mother in law. Mark 1:17-21.”
Wow, you know all the facts as if you were there during Jesus’ time.
I am sorry. I do not have your guts to speculate the events as the ways you speculated them. I do not blame you for many Protestants I know speculated or rationalized a lot of strange events, like the end time or the end of the world just to justify their own pre-conceived ideas. Well, going back to our topic, Peter’s wife is never mentioned in the Gospels except his mother-in-law. Could it be possible that Peter’s wife was already dead when Jesus called Peter to be his disciple? Besides, none of the wives of the apostles is mentioned in the Gospels. Could it be that all the apostles are single men like Jesus himself? (Thanks to the thinking of Saradippity) I can only ask these questions but I do not know AS OF NOW the real answers.
The main issue here is regarding to the teaching of Jesus as described in Luke 18, 28-30; Matthew 19, 27-29; Mark 10, 28-31. Whether you accept this teaching fully, partially or not at all is beyond our control. For the apostles to remain unmarried and celibate, the question of abandoning “wives and widows” could not even exist. In fact, Paul reinforced the idea of celibacy in
1 Corinthians 7, 32: I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord. 33: But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, 34: and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband. 35: I am telling you this for YOUR OWN BENEFIT, NOT TO IMPOSE A RESTRAINT UPON YOU, BUT FOR THE SAKE OF PROPRIETY AND ADHERENCE TO THE LORD WITHOUT DISTRACTION.
Try reading your bible. You will see that Jesus and His disciples took several trips. You base your argument on vacuums. You quote Corinthians, but that passage has nothing to do with leadership positions.
"You quote Corinthians, but that passage has nothing to do with leadership positions."
You must be confused. Our topic is about "Priestly Celibacy" and not "leadership position."
The passage has nothing to do with priests. Isn't a priest a leader?
"The passage has nothing to do with priests. Isn't a priest a leader?"
Next time, read carefully the title of the thread and understand its objective before you get yourself into the discussion, okay? It will save all of us a lot of times and energies.
Well, let me explain it more plainly for the last time. This thread is about the justification of priestly celibacy. My point is that the celibate life styles chosen by priests do conform highly favorably with the scripture as indicated in the passages I sited. You may still not agree with me and I have no intension to convince you either. May Christ lead us to the truths.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.