This is the third post in a series about the Latter-day Saint doctrine of eternal marriage that began on May 27 with “Eternal Companion: Introduction“.
Paul’s counsel to remain unmarried
Another good set of passages on the subject of marriage that comes up once in a while is Paul’s counsel to avoid marriage. In Mormon thought, celestial marriage is required for a person to attain to the highest kingdom of heaven, the Celestial Kingdom. Contrarily, Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 7:6-9:
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion.
Later in the same chapter (vv. 26-28, 32-40) Paul explains further:
I think that in view of the present distress it is good for a person to remain as he is. Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, you have not sinned, and if a betrothed woman marries, she has not sinned. Yet those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. …
I want you to be free from anxieties. The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. I say this for your own benefit, not to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.
If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin. But whoever is firmly established in his heart, being under no necessity but having his desire under control, and has determined this in his heart, to keep her as his betrothed, he will do well. So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.
It’s clear to me that Paul is giving privileged status to the unmarried.
Joseph Smith’s translation
It’s worth noting here that Joseph Smith’s translation ((See Wikipedia » Joseph Smith Translation.)) of the Bible clarifies in 1 Cor. 7:26 that Paul is speaking directly to those who were called to the ministry, namely full-time missionaries. This is one reason LDS missionaries serve their two year missions at age 19 before they are married. Outside of the Joseph Smith translation, however, I see nothing in the context that indicates that Paul was speaking only to missionaries. In fact, he specifically states that he’s speaking to the unmarried and widows in verse 8 and to virgins in verse 25.
There is a bit in the center of the chapter (vv. 17–24) that talks on the subject of living as you have been called. One could construe from this section that Paul is talking to those called to ministry, but a closer inspection reveals that the calling in this sense refers to your lot in life. Are you a slave? Don’t seek to be free. Are you uncircumcised? Don’t worry about getting circumcised. These are your “callings” in life. Likewise, are you married? Don’t seek to become single. Are you unmarried? Don’t be in a rush to get married. These again are your callings in life and Paul’s advice is that you would do well to remain as you are.
So, I suppose we are at somewhat of an impasse here. If you believe Joseph Smith was a prophet, these verses about remaining single are easy to dismiss because they only apply to missionaries. If you don’t believe in Joseph Smith, however, all people would do well to heed this advice because it seems to apply to everyone.
Some Q & A
I’ve received a number of good comments on this series and I don’t want to leave them unanswered.
Steve said:
Joey, I am surprised. Normally, you do a decent job at researching, developing, and explaining Latter-day Saint doctrine before attempting to discredit it with Biblical passages. Often, you cite your sources of Mormon doctrine.
I thought I did cite my sources in the first post in the series. I suppose I didn’t do much in the way of explaining the doctrine, but I trust my readers can follow the links and gain a good enough understanding of the doctrine for themselves. I’d rather have them go to the source than do an insufficient job trying to explain it myself. However, I agree that I’ve done better in the past and will try to stay committed to explaining things better in future series. I do appreciate your thoughtful exposition on the subject. You cited some good sources I had not found in my original research.
Have I sufficiently proven with my words above that the doctrine of eternal marriage is true and consistent with the New Testament? Of course not. I hope you didn’t actually think I would.
Eternal marriage is a huge subject, which five arguments from two or three authors will neither prove nor disprove. Furthermore, it generally is not considered a New Testament doctrine, even by Latter-day Saint faithful. Eternal marriage is a restored doctrine that the Bible does not address directly.
You bring up a good point here. As I said above, we’re at a bit of an impasse. As I see it, and it appears that you agree with me, the doctrine of eternal marriage hangs or falls on the legitimacy of Joseph Smith’s prophetic calling. I’m willing to leave it at that for now.
I maintain that anyone who tries to prove controversial religious doctrines with the Bible will fail. If it were possible to prove an interpretation of these doctrines, they would not remain controversial after two thousand years of Christianity and thousands more of Judaism. Readers can often validly interpret one or two (or two hundred) biblical passage several different ways, and some passages even contradict others.
While I agree that an appeal to scripture is never in itself sufficient to prove something (hence our constant need for the Holy Spirit’s guidance), I maintain that this doctrine wasn’t controversial until Joseph Smith brought it up. With very few exceptions (in fact, none that I know of), the rest of the Christian world agrees that marriage ends at death.
Let the jurors ask the Lord in sincere prayer and seek diligently for the truth, wherever it may be.
Amen.
Keith said:
Why would God choose the term “marriage” as a metaphor for his relationship with those who are born again if he also explicitly stated that the institution of marriage is absolved at death? If marriage is understood as something that is absolved at the time of death, then wouldn’t the use of the word “marriage” or “bridegroom” imply that salvation is also absolved at death?
Did God make a bad choice of words to describe the covenant relationship?
An excellent question. It’s interesting that you would ask it, because I’ll be going in that direction in the next installment. I have been planning to do so since my earliest outline of the series. As such, I’ll leave a more thorough answer until later. Suffice it to say now, I think God’s use of marriage as a metaphor for our relationship with him is one of the strongest arguments for marriage ending at death, for “when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.” (1 Cor. 13:10). Human marriage is but a type and shadow of the perfect eternal companionship we will have with God in heaven, and as such it must pass away when the fullness is ushered in.