Can Man Live Without Sex?

By Sean McDowell Published on February 17, 2018

It’s no secret that our culture is hypersexualized. Music. Commercials. Movies. Internet. News. Sex is simply everywhere in our culture.

As a result, it is deeply tempting to buy the narrative that sexual experience is the surest route to happiness and fulfillment. To deny yourself sexual activity, on this view, is to undercut your own humanity.

As popular and appealing as this view may be, it is deeply mistaken. 

Jesus was Single, and Fully Content

In my recent dialogue with Matthew Vines about the Bible and Homosexuality, I began my opening speech by focusing on the life and teachings of Jesus. I noted that even though Jesus was single, he was fully content. He never married, and he did not engage in a single sex act. And yet, in contrast to the sex-crazed narrative of our culture, he experienced profound contentment, joy and peace with his sexuality as an adult single male.

And remember, Jesus was truly God, yet he was also truly human. He was not a sexless deity. Jesus experienced the depths of temptation, as the author of Hebrews describes: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin” (4:15). Jesus went through puberty. He had body hair. He was attracted to women. And although he never engaged in a single sex act, he was fully content with his sexuality.

Here’s the bottom line: Humans can live without sex and marriage. But we weren’t designed to live without love and intimacy — and there’s a big difference. You see, there can be sex without intimacy (e.g., a hookup). And there can be intimacy without sex (e.g., friendship). Sex is neither necessary nor sufficient to experience the depths of human intimacy God designed us for.

Humans can live without sex and marriage. But we weren’t designed to live without love and intimacy

Sex is Good

My point is not to downplay the value of sex. Unfortunately, the church has sometimes made the mistake of communicating that sex is bad. This could not be further from the truth! Sex is a good gift from God for the purpose of procreation (Gen 1:28) and unity (Gen 2:24). And God intended for sex to be enjoyable between husband and wife (see Song of Solomon and Proverbs 5). But despite the cultural narrative, sexual activity is not essential for human flourishing or personal fulfillment. The life of Jesus puts this cultural myth to rest.

You might be thinking, “That’s easy for you to say, Sean, since you’re married and have kids.” Whether true or not (in this case, it is true) this objection is simply irrelevant to the claim itself. It is a classical genetic fallacy, which dismisses a claim because of its origins.

You’re Not Losing Out

Nevertheless, there are many single people who make the same point. Ed Shaw is a same-sex attracted pastor from the UK. In his book Same-Sex Attraction and the Church, Shaw argues that God is not the one who is keeping same-sex attracted men and women from experiencing intimate relationships. Rather, it is our hyper-sexualized culture that cannot process non-sexual intimate relationships. He wishes the church would put as much energy into cultivating good friendships as it does good marriages. I agree 100 percent.

Help us champion truth, freedom, limited government and human dignity. Support The Stream »

In conclusion, consider pastor Shaw’s words:

I know there are many today who think it is a great tragedy to die a virgin. But I hope I will. Because I know that I will not have lost out on anything too significant. Because the Bible teaches me that I will have missed only the brief foretaste that sex is meant to be of the eternal reality of the perfect union between Christ and his church that I will one day experience forever (Revelation 21:1-15). Any fleeting pleasure I’ve given up in the meantime will be more than worth it then.

Amen.

 

Sean McDowell, Ph.D. is a professor of Christian Apologetics at Biola University, best-selling author, popular speaker, part-time high school teacher, and the Resident Scholar for Summit Ministries, California. Follow him on Twitter: @sean_mcdowell and his blog: seanmcdowell.org.  

Originally published at SeanMcDowell.org. Republished with permission.

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Sean, I have a tendency to ignore advice regarding a subject that the speaker has, by their choices, not had to suffer through. If I were leading a congregation, either there would be no singles ministry at all, or if there were, the first question on the leadership application would be, “Are you single yourself?” That would be the first question because no one should be trumpeting what a blessed and glorious life it is when they are not walking that walk themselves. I’m glad you at least quoted someone who is walking that walk and understands the struggle that it truly is, because I doubt that you do.

    I could go much, much further on, but I think you get my point.

    • JP

      so what is your point?

  • Paul

    Yes, a man can live without sex, but his kids won’t.

  • Trilemma

    How do we know Jesus never married? The Bible says nothing of his life from age 12 to 30. That’s plenty of time to have been married. Surely, the parents of Jesus would have arranged for him to be married and Jesus, in order to honor his parents, would have done so.

    • Andrew Mason

      So is it your contention that Jesus could have been widowed or divorced? Remember, Jesus’ family is mentioned, a wife is not.

      • Trilemma

        Divorced seems unlikely. So Jesus was either widowed or still married during his ministry. None of the wives of the 12 apostles are mentioned. We know Peter had a wife but she isn’t mentioned.

        • Andrew Mason

          Peter’s wife isn’t mentioned? What of:
          Matthew 18:14 And when Jesus entered Peter’s house, he saw his mother-in-law lying sick with a fever.

          Mark 1:30 Now Simon’s mother-in-law lay ill with a fever, and immediately they told him about her.

          Luke 4:38 And he arose and left the synagogue and entered Simon’s house. Now Simon’s mother-in-law was ill with a high fever, and they appealed to him on her behalf.

          1 Corinthians 9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

          While not specifically identified the existence of a wife for Peter seems clear. By contrast Jesus was celibate.

          • Trilemma

            I said we know Peter had a wife. But the Bible never mentions her. Should we conclude the other 11 apostles were celibate?

            There is no way to know if Jesus was celibate. If Jesus was an obedient son, then he most likely had a wife because his parents would have wanted him to be married.

          • Andrew Mason

            Actually as I just showed she’s referenced. You can’t have a mother-in-law without a wife, and you can’t have a wife accompanying you if you aren’t married. As for the other apostles, I’d suggest it’s not important to know which were married and which (if any) weren’t.

            Actually it’s fairly easy to know if Jesus was celibate. What did He teach regarding sexualmarital relations? Was He a hypocrite? Assuming you argue He isn’t a hypocrite then He must conform to His teachings. And there’s no reason to conclude Jesus’ parents would have wanted to marry Him off since they knew that He wasn’t a typical son, plus Joseph is understood to have died at a young age making Jesus the man of the house which would have left little time for wife-hunting even had He been interested.

          • Trilemma

            What exactly did Jesus teach regarding sexualmarital relations that would make him a hypocrite if he were married?

            Jesus could have easily been married long before Joseph died.

          • davidrev17

            Probably one of the most profound illustrations from the text itself, supporting the notion of Yeshua/Jesus’ lifelong celibacy – thus this inference would be on solid rational/logical footing, considering ancient Jewish culture – is found in the passage below; where Yeshua is already crucified, yet still conscious, as he hung there for roughly 6-hours before “dismissing his own spirit”:

            Now, if Jesus had been married to “Mary Magdalene,” as has been alleged by so many conspiracy theorists majoring in “tabloid scholarship,” why did he entrust the ongoing care of his own mother into the “hands” of his own NON-familial disciple, the “Apostle John; instead of simply allowing his mother to remain with the “imagined” family member and/or “daughter-in-law,” Mary Magdalene, as well as her own sister named in the text, “Mary the wife of Clopas”??

            And notice that the Lord Yeshua specifically stresses to BOTH his mother & his beloved Apostle John [Yochanon] – the forthcoming “nature” of this brand-new earthly/familial relationship, that will continue long-after he’d departed this world, to “return to his father”? (i.e., John 13:1-3)

            It sure seems like Jesus made doubly sure that his “favorite girl” (meaning his mother] was going to be well taken care of, BEFORE his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, huh?

            Plus, like I said: the concept of family in ancient Jewish culture, was of no doubt critical importance. Yet not one “word” was uttered to Mary Magdalene, or any other woman except his mother – see what’s called the “7 saying’s, or statements of Jesus from the cross” – as he hung there like a common criminal, for the “sins of the mankind”??

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “…so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

            “So the soldiers did these things, but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

            “When Jesus saw his mother [Miriam = Mary] and the disciple whom he loved [the Apostle John = Yochanon] standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”

            And from that hour the disciple [John] took her [Jesus’ mother] to his own home” (John 19:24-27, my emphasis of course).

          • Trilemma

            The identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved is not explicitly given but is simply presumed to be the apostle John by tradition. The reason Jesus wanted his mother taken care of by this disciple rather than one of his half-brothers is because this disciple was the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. It was understood that the son of Jesus and Mary Magdalene would take care of Mary Magdalene after Jesus died since that’s what was expected of the first born son so there was no reason for Jesus to specify that from the cross.

          • davidrev17

            “You do err not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God.” (Matthew 22:29ff)

            Contra your blasphemous assertion that the sinless & Holy [fully human, yet fully Divine] Son of God, or “God the Son,” had somehow married and had a child, completely ignores the SELF-identification of the Apostle John/Yochanon in the text itself; i.e., notice the consistent phrase “that disciple whom Jesus loved,” utilized in the 4th Gospel which bears his name, beginning with John 13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 24.

            And even more convincing, is Yochanon/John’s connecting his initial use of the “disciple whom Jesus loved, reclining against his bosom” (John 13:23) – during Jesus’ final hours on this earth, at his “last supper” with “the eleven,” AFTER Judas had departed to betray him – with one of the Lord’s several post-physical-bodily-resurrection appearances, at which he Yochanon was also an eyewitness.

            (And notice the phrase “sons of Zebedee,” in John 21:2 – aka the “Sons of Thunder,” Jacob = James & Yochanon = John – stated as being present at this particular appearance.)

            Any purported, or self-imagined progeny of the sinless Son of God – a postmodern deconstructionist idea, literally imposed upon the text of Scripture at best – was NEVER considered to be one of the original “twelve disciples” for obvious reasons, let alone that particular “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the Apostle John, author of the last Gospel which bears his name.

          • Trilemma

            The writer of the book of John never identifies the disciple that Jesus loved as the apostle John. They were two different people.

          • davidrev17

            “Peter turned and saw the disciple [John] whom Jesus loved following them, the one who also had leaned back against him during the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?”Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow me!”

            “So the saying spread abroad among the brothers that this disciple [John, author of this Gospel] was not to die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he was not to die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”

            “This is the [same] disciple [John] who is bearing witness about these things, and who has written these things, and we know that his testimony is true.” (John 21:20-24)

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “My mind is already made up…so don’t confuse me with the facts”!

            You either don’t read, read carefully, or you really aren’t genuinely “searching for truth”? Notice that last verse, John 21:24: the very same individual introduced as one of the “Sons of Zebedee” (21:2), as an eyewitness to this specific resurrection appearance, is the ONE doing the writing and/or narrating of this Gospel, circa 90 C.E., also SELF-identified in its context, beginning with: John 13:23; then 19:26 AT THE CROSS w/Jesus’ mother, sister, and good friend Mary Magdalene; then 20:2; 21:7, 20, 24.

            However, I’m acutely aware of the existential reality that one genuinely being indwelt by the Holy Spirit, or the “Spirit of Truth” Himself (aka the “Teacher”), is in a FAR-MORE beneficial position to “see”/”understand” these things in Holy Scripture. Perhaps when you look at the Bible, you’re still “reading someone else’s mail”?

            Please…why don’t you allow the Lord Jesus (i.e., the Holy Spirit) to address this critically relevant “wall-of-sin” – of which no doubt still exists between you both?? You have everything to both gain & lose – depending upon the verdict your heart renders, before you physically depart these earthbound dimensions.

            ▪ ▪ ▪

            “Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say that “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:3)

          • Trilemma

            Adding names in brackets doesn’t change the fact that the name of the person who wrote the book of John is not given. Therefore, the name of the disciple whom Jesus loved is not known.

            Simon Peter, Thomas (called the Twin), Nathanael of Cana in Galilee, the sons of Zebedee, and two others of his disciples were together. – John 21:2 ESV

            The apostle John was obviously in this group being a son of Zebedee. The disciple whom Jesus loved was obviously one of the two unnamed disciples. The disciple whom Jesus loved obviously didn’t want his name to be known so he would not have revealed it in the last chapter as you hope.

          • davidrev17

            But John 13:23 connects all of this historical before-and-after narrative together, of which I provided in that litany of scripture quotations within John’s Gospel; since there was NO other disciples present during their “Last Supper” together – except “the eleven”?

            And in providing this hermeneutical smoke-and-mirrors interpretation upon the text of Scripture – you actually seem to be asserting one of those logically fallacious “arguments from silence” – in broad, sweeping fashion too.

            Do you also deny certifiable Johannine authorship to 1, 2 , & 3 John, as well as the Book of Revelation? If so, please be kind enough to describe WHY you believe these things; instead of your typical groundless opinions re: the WHAT of which is taught in Scripture – including little if any evidence in support of such subjective notions identifying the WHY? Case in point, you state:

            “The disciple whom Jesus loved was obviously one of the two unnamed disciples. The disciple whom Jesus loved obviously didn’t want his name to be known so he would not have revealed it in the last chapter as you hope.”

            Now, please provide the scriptural/historical evidence undergirding that statement; whose evidence would definitely go a long way in convincing your readers, as to the WHY you think this. Thank you in advance!

          • Trilemma

            Even though the Bible only mentions Jesus and the 12 apostles being present at the last supper, it’s reasonable to think that the wives and children of the apostles were there too.

            According the the Wikipedia article, “Authorship of the Johannine works,” the modern scholarship is that John, the 3 epistles and Revelation were written by three different people.

            I readily admit my argument is largely an argument from silence but so is your argument an argument from silence. However, my argument explains the events recorded in the Bible better than yours.

          • davidrev17

            And you’ve still neglected to explain, let alone demonstrate, just WHY “your argument explains the events recorded in the Bible better than mine” – particularly when I don’t recall any of your statements containing any biblical justification whatsoever.

            What am I missing here?? You are “importing,” or “smuggling,” much in the way of spurious conjecture, into the very text of historical record Trilemma?

          • Trilemma

            It would make more sense for Jesus to entrust the care of his mother to a family member than a non-family person as you claim. Jesus could have given his brother James the responsibility, that would make more sense than a non-family person. So, it makes more sense that the disciple whom Jesus loved was a close family member such as his own son.

          • davidrev17

            Sounds reasonable, though that’s idle speculation at best, imported from outside the text of Scripture; just like your arbitrarily placing “wives and children” at the Last Supper, even though all three Synoptic Gospels (Matt. 26, Mark 14, and Luke 22) unambiguously stipulate the number “twelve,” regarding those present at the “LS”; even though some manuscripts lacks the numerical specificity.

            And as for Jesus’ half-brother James – of whom had eventually become one of the original leaders of the Jerusalem Church (i.e., Acts 15 & Galatians 2:1-9) AFTER the Lord’s physical/bodily resurrection: he was STILL an UNbeliever (thus apparently absent) during that exchange Jesus had with his mother, and the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” at the foot of Calvary’s cross.

            Thus the Apostle in his “Gospel of John” (7:5), makes the case for his brothers’ collective UNbelief in his own Messianic declarations, crystal-clear. (See 7:1-9)

            Also, one can’t lose sight of the fact that Peter, plus Jacob=James, and Yochanon=John (aka the “Sons of Zebedee,” or “Sons of Thunder”) had become part of his most trusted “inner-circle” of disciples, during his roughly three-years of ministry. Hence, those verses I quoted connecting Peter & John (“the disciple Jesus loved” to the Last Supper & that specific resurrection appearance in John 21.

            (BTW: in case you may have conflated some of the characters of Jesus’ disciples, the Apostle John’s brother Jacob=James, was THE one martyred by Herod in Acts 12:1-4.)

            How you can read such blatant self-identification terminology by the Apostle John, in no less than 7-places in his Gospel; yet still choose to smuggle-in these totally arcane, and equally non-existent concepts within the Greek NT text – like you’ve consistently done today – reveals a “heart” that’s no doubt still struggling (or perhaps wrangling), with the ACTUAL/REAL “person & work” of Yeshua of Nazareth – and its eternal implications for you personally? (IMO) At least that’s my prayerful hope!

            You “have the last word,” should you so desire; as I’ll not engage you any further in this area, unless you have something new to discuss on this issue. Thanks & may God radically rock-your-world one day, by providing His wholly inscrutable, intimate act of SELF-disclosure to your heart & mind – oftentimes called a “Truth Encounter.” Shalom!

          • Trilemma

            Here’s a question that just occurred to me. Why did Jesus feel the need to make sure his mother would be taken care of while he was on the cross when he knew he would be resurrected in 3 days and have 40 days to make the arrangement?

            Peace

          • davidrev17

            Sorry to take so long in responding, but I was seeking some Christ-honoring other-worldly understanding, or insight from the “Spirit of Truth,” to what’s clearly one of those proverbial “loaded questions.”

            So first off, please know I’m in NO position to foolishly speculate about the “mind of omniscience” Yeshua seemed to possess and/or manifest in so very many ways, and on so many occasions; though it may have been in some sort of a limited capacity, given his “kenosis” [Greek] in time-space-dimension history, or the “self-emptying” of his full Divinity during the Incarnation. (i.e., Philippians 2:7; 2 Corinthians 8:9)

            Now, to attempt an answer, one factually plausible scenario seems clear: Jesus’ “legal father” Joseph – as he had NO biological father in the first place (e.g., Genesis 3:15; Matthew 1:16, 18-25; Luke 1:26-38) – was no longer around in their lives (maybe dead by then?), otherwise this arrangement would’ve been totally unnecessary.

            And the same plausibility retains some strong inferential significance, if indeed – as you’ve suggested – “the disciple whom Jesus loved standing nearby with his mother” (see John 19:26-27, 35) was his own biological SON, as opposed to the Apostle Yochanon=John, EYEWITNESS & writer of the Gospel of John?

            Because in either scenario, Yeshua’s earthly mother Miriam, would’ve already been carefully placed in the safekeeping of family members; as both Mary Magdalene (his grieving wife) and the “disciple whom Jesus loved” (his own son, according to you?), were present at this critical juncture? So this familial “entrusting” would sure seem to be redundant, under those circumstances?

            Thus, WHY would this formal “entrusting” of his mother into the care of the “non-family” Apostle Yochanon=John ever have been necessary – since purported family members like Miriam’s sister, “Mary the wife of Clopas” (maybe her husband too?), plus Jesus’ wife & biological son, were all simultaneously part of this grieving group of loved ones at the “foot of the cross”??

            And it’s the very presence of these serious incongruities embedded within the text of John’s Gospel; whose contextual anomalies become even more glaringly problematic, if one goes on to insist that the several times the phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” is used in the Gospel of John, is ALWAYS referring to Jesus’ “biological son” – as opposed to the “eyewitness” himself, the Apostle John.

            As such, this particular designation (or interpretation) for the “disciple whom Jesus loved” in John 19:25-27 – as being his own “biological son” – can find NO plausible contextual “home” in that John 19 encounter; not to mention this strained interpretation being imposed upon the text, in its other several uses, of which I mentioned above. Now, “that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it”!

          • Trilemma

            Actually, I wasn’t expecting you to respond to my question. It’s simply a head-scratcher and any answer would be purely speculative and do nothing to indicate the true identity of the disciple whom Jesus loved. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to respond to my comments. Peace.

          • Kathy

            You remind me so much of the atheist acquaintance I had similar conversations with. He chose to argue trivial passages in the Bible that are difficult to comprehend (God said “My thoughts are higher than your thoughts”) or that mean nothing to our salvation in Christ (the main things are the plain things, the plain things are the main things), along with being obsessed with the book of Leviticus, mostly ignoring the rest of the Bible. He would say “Demand your God prove Himself to me by manifesting Himself in a burning bush”. You know what? He still would not have believed because HE DIDN’T WANT TO.

            Please do yourself a favor and quit fighting, humble yourself, repent and turn from your sin (“No one is righteous, no not one”) and trust in what Jesus did for those who believe in His sacrifice in our place. God will forgive ALL sins past, present and future if you just do these things, but He will NOT forgive a denial of the Truth manifested in His Son.

            Your life depends on it, Trilemma. Don’t wait until it’s too late, There will be NO second chance after you die.

      • Bob Blaylock

          I think Jesus’ wife is mentioned in the Bible, just that it is never stated that she was his wife.

          To whom did he first appear, after he was resurrected?  Surely, that would have been the most important person to him.  If he was single, then I would expect that his mother would be the most important person to him, and that she would be the one to whom he first appeared after his resurrection.  But it wasn’t his mother to whom he first appeared.  It was someone else, more important to him than his mother.

        • Andrew Mason

          Who visited the tomb first? Might there not be a connection without any marital association? Remember it was a group of women not a lone woman. In Luke His next appearance is to two unnamed disciples travelling to a village. They too informed the Apostles of Christ’s resurrection, and then He appeared to the Apostles. Seems His priorities aren’t yours or mine.

          • Trilemma

            According to John, Mary Magdalene visited the tomb first before it was light, alone.

        • davidrev17

          Bob:

          I thought I’d provide this post to you, of which I just posted to “Trilemma,” in order to convey the consistent scriptural warning re: “adding to,” or the “taking away from” Holy Writ; a very dangerous practice of which has become strangely commonplace, during these self-deluded heady-days of “postmodern deconstructionism”:

          ▪ ▪ ▪

          Probably one of the most profound illustrations from the text itself, supporting the notion of Yeshua/Jesus’ lifelong celibacy – thus this inference would be on solid rational/logical footing, considering ancient Jewish culture – is found in the passage below; where Yeshua is already crucified, yet still conscious, as he hung there for roughly 6-hours before “dismissing his own spirit.”

          Now, if Jesus had been married to “Mary Magdalene,” as has been alleged by so many conspiracy theorists majoring in “tabloid scholarship,” why did he entrust the ongoing care of his mother, into the “hands” of his own NON-familial disciple, the “Apostle John”; instead of simply allowing his mother to remain with the “imagined” family member and/or “daughter-in-law,” Mary Magdalene, as well as her own sister named in the text, “Mary the wife of Clopas” – not to mention Yeshua’s “unbelieving” half-brother’s, otherwise referred to as Miriam’s “biological sons”??

          And notice that the Lord Yeshua specifically stresses to BOTH his mother & his beloved Apostle John [Yochanon] – the forthcoming “nature” of this brand-new earthly/familial relationship, that will continue long-after he’d “departed this world to return to his father”? (i.e., John 13:1-3)

          It sure seems like Jesus made doubly sure that his “favorite girl” [meaning his mother] was going to be well taken care of BEFORE his death, burial, resurrection, and ascension, huh?

          Plus, like I said: the concept of family in ancient Jewish culture, was of no doubt critical importance. Yet not one “word” was uttered to Mary Magdalene, or any other woman except his mother – see what’s called the “7 saying’s, or statements of Jesus from the cross”; as those spikes (and his “agape” love) kept him hanging there like a common criminal, for the inscrutable prophetic fulfillment of Messiah Jesus’ “substitutionary atonement” for mankind’s SIN?

          ▪ ▪ ▪

          “…so they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see whose it shall be.” This was to fulfill the Scripture which says, “They divided my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots.”

          “So the soldiers did these things, but standing by the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.

          “When Jesus saw his mother [Miriam = Mary] and the disciple whom he loved [the Apostle John = Yochanon] standing nearby, he said to his mother, “Woman, behold, your son!” Then he said to the disciple, “Behold, your mother!”

          And from that hour the disciple [John] took her [Jesus’ mother] to his own home” (John 19:24-27, my emphasis of course).

  • Rob Abney

    The virgin pastor could fully commit to being single by consecrating his life to God, including a solemn vow of celibacy. Otherwise he is just single for now with marriage always a possibility.

  • LgVt

    While I realize it goes against the thrust of this article, there’s an important piece missing here: If God has not specifically called you to forsake marriage and sex, you won’t be able to do it. Jesus was very explicit about this (see Matt 19:10-12) and Paul reinforced that in 1 Cor 7.

    Sex outside of marriage is unacceptable. But for the vast majority of people, the prescribed answer is not to go without sex, but to get married.

    • Daniel Gudelunas

      >thrust of this article

      I can’t help it, I have to ask. Was that pun intended?

      • LgVt

        *facepalm*

  • YUGE

    Priests are pedophiles.

Inspiration
Why We Need the Wise Counsel of Good Friends
Casey Chalk
More from The Stream
Connect with Us