I don't see that either of them were against it.
You misunderstand my meaning. I did not suggest that either of them was against marriage; only that staying single for God is the superior option. I'm guessing you feel offended by that because you think it is a slight on your own marriage. That is not my meaning. Jesus clarified that his comment about eunuchs was for those who could accept it. The implication is that this single-mindedness is his preference, but he understands some people will choose to marry. It's likely that he recognized some people would work better together (which is why he added that caveat about it being for those who can accept it), but still, he has a responsibility to clarify the superior option.
I don't think that "eunuch" means, or just means, "single person".
A eunuch is a man who has been castrated to prevent sexual desire. Typically they were put in charge of a ruler's harem and could be trusted with that job precisely because they'd not be tempted. These are not voluntary positions as most of them were only boys when they were castrated which prevented them from maturing (though this misfortune was offset by having very close access to the ruler, and therefor power).
When Jesus says there are some who make themselves eunuchs he was referring to a person making a choice to stay single. The comment only has merit in that context based on what the word actually means. There was a lot of confusion about this in the years after his death, with some men believing that he meant it literally. As a result they would perform very dangerous procedures on themselves and one another. I admire their commitment, but they could have avoided a lot of pain and trouble if they'd just listened to the spirit of his comments.
Paul didn't seem to have a problem with Priscilla and Aquila being married.
I agree. Paul was not against marriage. You seem a little bit sensitive about this topic. Is it something which has been an issue before, in another context? I know that some divorced and remarried couples can be quite sensitive to this issue because Jesus forbid divorce and remarriage.
I read in a commentary once that some people think that Paul must have been married at some point, as he had been a member of a prominent Jewish council and it would have been very unusual for any single Jewish man to have been on that. I have no idea where I read that and can't quote any references, but it was the author's position.
I would suggest that this author probably also had some kind of sensitivity to this issue which influenced how he interprets Paul's writings. The most clear information regarding his attitude toward marriage comes from 1 Corinthians 7. He says:
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
This is pretty clear; marriage is okay. He goes on to give some instructions for how married couples should behave, that they should not deny one another sex except in the event that they both agree to be apart for a time of fasting and prayer, but then come back together again so that they don't get tempted to wander.
Then he goes on to say that he's not issuing these instructions on behalf of God, but rather just giving his opinion (i.e.
But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.)
The next verse is pretty clear; he says, "
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".
The context is that of married couples, but then he says, "I wish everyone was like me" (i.e. single). If he was married, this comment would make no sense. He even suggests that staying single for God may actually be a gift in the same way that people have different gifts. I have often struggled with understanding how much of celibacy is a personal choice and how much is a calling from God. There seems to be a lot of grey area there.
Then the next couple verses make it even more clear; he says, "
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."
Whomever that author was who suggested (as far as you can remember) that Paul was married probably didn't read this chapter carefully. Paul says to the unmarried (and widows) that they should be like him (i.e. unmarried). But, if they genuinely feel like they can't handle that, okay, get married. No problem.
A little further along in verses 25 and 26 he says this: "
Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be."
Take careful note that he's gone back to expressing his opinion again. He judges that it would be better for virgins (whether male or female) to remain virgins (i.e. not marry). This is not a command from God against marriage; it's just an honest opinion from a wise man.
Also note that he clarifies "for this present distress". We're no longer in the time of "be fruitful and multiply". Circumstances have changed. Again, marriage and having children is not wrong, but even Jesus made it clear that the days before his return would be very difficult for anyone with children. He even says woe to those people (Matthew 24:19). That's a pretty serious warning.
In verse 28 he once again reiterates that he's not condemning marriage: "
But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you."
I guess I feel some affinity for Paul in this context as I also feel that I must comfort you every few sentences with a reiteration that marriage is not wrong. He probably faced similar frustrations with the churches (especially the church at Corinth as he seemed to have more trouble with this church than with any of the others).
He makes it clear that his comments are not meant to be taken as orders against marriage, but rather he's trying to communicate a spiritual principle and they keep missing it because of their insecurities, like he's trying to take something away from them.
He even goes so far as to suggest that those who are married should consider experimenting as though they are not: "
But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;"
At first this may sound like a contradiction to his earlier comments that husbands and wives should not deprive one another of sex, but it's not a contradiction at all. He's saying that they should practice with learning how to let go of the emotional attachments that they feel for one another as these feelings can often blind us to the bigger picture that God may want us to see, without us even realizing it.
This is a difficult lesson to communicate to married couples because of that emotional attachment. It is not wrong to have strong feelings, but it's easy to mistake discipline as a threat to the relationship. By discipline, I mean the same thing Paul does; learning how to put God first even after being married.
Then he gives some reasons why staying single is better:
"He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife."
It's not meant to be an insult; it's just an observation which makes practical sense, not necessarily in all cases, but in general.
He goes on to recognize, once again, that some people may interpret this as a threat to their desires. He says, "
And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction."
He's not trying to trick or trap or deny anyone. He's simply saying what he believes to be right. He genuinely believes it's better to stay single and as a spiritual leader it's his job to communicate what he thinks is right even if it may offend or hurt some people's feelings.
He concludes by saying this:
"Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.
So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better".
It is important for all unmarried Christians to carefully consider whether or not they should get married. Strong feelings are not wrong, but they should not be the foundation of marriage. They should be taught to at least consider celibacy first, and if, after that consideration they still believe it is better to marry, then that's what they should do. But, if they don't even want to consider it, that's a problem. It demonstrates that their feelings are overpowering their ability to at least consider putting God first.
