One Multiplied by God

[Lookin^Up]

I once heard of an overseas missions organization that would turn away applicants because they were not married. "Find a spouse, then come back," was their attitude. In their view, singles were undedicated, uncommitted and undisciplined.

Yet, contrary to popular secular opinion, Jesus had never married. Would they call Him undedicated, uncommitted or undisciplined?

What about the Apostle Paul? Not only did he never marry, but he gloried in the fact in 1 Corinthians 7. Do his church-planting activities evince a loose cannon that might harm the cause of Christ?

Through the most significant part of Joseph’s experience, he was single. Sure he married Asenath, daughter of an Egyptian priest, but that was after the story of his rags-to-riches rise to power.

And there is no record of Joshua ever having a wife, yet he is credited with some of the cleverest military maneuvers ever recorded in history. Who could be more dedicated than an army general?

Between Exodus 4:25 and Numbers 12:1, Moses led an entire nation without a wife at his side. As a Midianite shepherd, he had married Zipporah; but because Midianites did not practice circumcision, that became a dividing point between them when he returned to his Jewish roots. Her parting shot was, "What a bloody husband you turned out to be!" (my paraphrase). About two years later, Moses married a black woman from Cush, who apparently had been traveling with the Jewish troop and therefore could accept the rite. I have no proof of the last statement; it just seems like a logical conclusion.

So there we have at least five men in the Bible who did great things for the Lord, even though they were not married. Reading their stories, you cannot help but see how dedicated, committed, and disciplined they were in their loyalty to God.

And yet there are other attitudes that come out of the church. By listing these, I am not saying these brothers and sisters are trying to meddle. They mean well, but they hold some erroneous views about what this life entails. They seem to believe they would be lonely without a partner, and in that they’re probably right. Unfortunately, they draw on this to assume single people must also be lonely. The truth is, there’s a huge difference between aloneness and loneliness, especially for Christians. As one pastor was fond of saying, "If you’re not happily single, you won’t be happily married, either."

They quote Genesis 2:20b, 24 NIV: "But for Adam no suitable helper (KJV "helpmeet") was found. … A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." According to my married friends, that means that Adam was lonely before Eve came along, that God ordained all men to have a helpmeet at their side. Therefore, if you’re still single after age 20, you’re either not fully committed to the Lord, or something else is wrong with you.

But a helpmeet was necessary for Adam because no women existed up to that point. Without Eve, the human race would get nowhere. Neither does it say Adam was lonely—nor could he be, having no idea what to be lonely for. Verse 24 is not so much a mandate as an explanation of why men leave home to marry and raise families of their own.

Jesus discussed singlehood after His message about divorce, when the disciples suggested, "It is better not to marry" (Matthew 19:10b). But Jesus said, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage [NIV footnote: Or have made themselves eunuchs] because of the Kingdom of Heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it" (Matthew 19:11-12).

Technically, a eunuch was a male royal servant who was emasculated to serve a queen or a princess, but most theologians agree that Jesus meant the term figuratively here. In my paraphrase of Matthew 19, I worded it this way: "As for singles, some remain unmarried for life, others are forced into it, and still others choose the spouseless life to better serve the Heavenly Kingdom." The NIV phrase "only those to whom it has been given" implies a gift—the gift of singleness—and "the one who can accept this should accept it" tells us that the gift is not to be spurned.

Can God use married people for His glory? Absolutely! Among the disciples, we’re only sure that Peter was married. Three of the Gospel writers saw fit to report Jesus’ healing of Peter’s mother-in-law (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4:38-39 NIV). In 1 Corinthians 9:5, Paul writes, "Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Peter]?" The fact that Peter was married before and after Jesus’ ministry, and that his wife was his helpmeet in his own ministry, suggests that she must’ve been just outside of the disciple band all during Jesus’ travels, possibly helping and serving with the more notable ladies (Luke 8:2-3).

Can God use single people for His glory? Absolutely! In addition to the five biblical men I’ve already mentioned, there are missionaries who believe remaining unmarried enhances their alone time with the Lord, and their productivity in His service. A lady named A. Wetherell Johnston never married throughout her long life; she was the main force behind Bible Study Fellowship, an organization that puts out study guides for groups all over the world.

"Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not seek a wife" (1 Corinthians 7:27).

[Keith Wallis]

Very interesting read. I support mission organisations right to lay down rules for those who wish to serve within their ranks but see no reason why singles should be ........... singled out !!! Marriage isn't necessarily a badge of honour and doesn't denote a better person.

[lallhands]

A good read, and being single for 39 years, I agree with much of it, but I take exception with the use of last scripture as I believe it is taken out of the context paul used it in. He was writing to the citizens of Corinth at a time of violent persecution of Christians and did not mean for it to apply to all Christians, everywhere, and for all time.

Here is an exerpt from the Coffman Commentary of 1 Corinthians 7:27

Verse 27
Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

The present distress ...
mentioned in the previous verse looms ominously in the background of these remarks. History has not revealed the nature of the awful persecution inflicted upon the Christians at this particular point, but it should be remembered that both Jewish and Gentile enemies of the faith would have seized any opportunity to exterminate, if possible, the Christian religion. The situation at Corinth was probably a local outburst of the persecutions which became more general at a later date. In any case, it may not be denied that some terrible onslaught against the faith of Christ was under way in Corinth at this very time. It was simply no favorable time for any man to be seeking to alter his marital status.


I like your title and concept. As a soldier, I fully understand force multiplication - and there is no force multiplier as powerful as the creator of the universe!

Cheers, and keep writing! !thumbsup!

[Lookin^Up]

Lallhands, thank you for your encouragement and commentary. With all due respect to Coffman, however, I believe I did use the verse in context.

1 Corinthians 6:12-20 sets the tone for chapter 7, and the "present crisis" (NIV) of verse 26 might be persecution outside of the church, or more likely it's linked with verse 2: "Since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband." No doubt the Corinthian Christians were being persecuted for their faith, but the focus of 1 Corinthians is more on church conduct. If they didn't clean up their act, their persecutors would have valid cause to be against them.

Between verse 2 and verse 26, I see no change in the subject of Paul's letter; it's all about maintaining morality. That's the "present crisis" I see. If I understand the culture of the day correctly, these people would marry and divorce on a regular basis, thanks to the idolatrous influence in their city, so Paul combines Jesus' words with his own (both Spirit-inspired) to set the record straight.

But just because it says "do not look for a wife," that doesn't mean we shouldn't marry should the right girl come along. The very next verse says, "But if you do marry, you have not sinned."

This is my view, and if you still disagree, that's fine. I just wanted to let you know where I was coming from.