With regard to the celibacy of Christ


#1

I started this thread in order to give a balanced position regarding the “holiness” and “unholiness” of sex. I also wanted to defend the position of why Christ could not be married which was brought up in another thread (“Fascinating Inter-Protestant Discussion regarding Bible origins”), but was subsequently deleted because of its controversy.

After some reflection on the subject of sex, I have the following thoughts:

Obviously, sex in and of itself is neither good or evil, holy or unholy. Just like the conversation between two people, holiness is determined by whether one is a believer. Unholy conversation and unholy sex exists between people who have rejected the spirit of Christ. The charity of Christ sanctifies all things. Therefore “pure” charity makes “pure” sex holy (not the other way around).

The peculiar vulnerability of a believer to carnality in sex is probably because the sin body has not been entirely destroyed, i.e. they are a weak Christian (or none at all). Yet, growth in Christ (i.e. destruction of the sin body - Romans 6:6, 8:13, 12:2, Ephesians 4:22-24) and the continual cleansing and renewal from sin (2 Cor 4:16) requires the recognition of the truth (James 5:16, 1 John 1:9).

Old testament allusions should be seen in light of the new testament. The old testament is a shadow of the full revelation found in the new testament, and of itself bears no fruit (2 Cor 3:7-11, Mat 21:19, Luke 13:6-9). In order to bear fruit, we must see the Song of Solomon, for instance, as depicting the spiritual love between Christ and his church, not physical love. Through eternity, the light of Christ will penetrate the virginity of all believers perpetually, and their will be no place for “physical relations” (Daniel 12:2-3, Matt 22:30, Mark 12:25, Luke 20:34-35).

In Christians who have destroyed the organization of their sin body, the flesh (and pride) of our old man, in an unorganized state, still fights against the Spirit of Christ (of whom our “new man” is made). 1 John 1:8, Romans 7:25, 1 Cor 9:27, Galations 5:17. The gradual corruption and death of our physical body symbolizes our imperfect state (which will be perfect when we are raised from death - 1 John 3:2-3). In regard to the original question, Christ while on the earth could not have been one flesh with another flesh, i.e. be married, that has sin (which must be continually purified by the one perfect flesh and spirit of Christ). Christ’s flesh has always been the flesh of the spotless lamb of God. This proof is in addition to the fact that Christ was single in pleasing the father and already betrothed to one spiritual wife.


#2

Very good. I would also add that Christ was the first priest. He is both priest and sacrifice. The Church is his bride. So too, the priest is both married to the Church and in celibacy, chastity, and obedience sacrifices himself for the Church.


#3

A few thoughts for the mix here . . .

When one has sex with another, scripture says they become “one flesh”, thus a spiritual bond has occurred.

Sex is a type or symbol of our Unity with Christ. When we, as the Bride of Christ, consummate our relationship with Christ, it’s via our declaration of faith and baptism, thus we enter into the New Covenant. A covenant is an oath or vow invoking God. The blood involved with making the oath is Christ’s shed blood.

A husband’s relationship with his wife is scripturally like Christ and the Church. When they consummate their marriage relationship via sex, they are making an oath or vow. The blood involved in the covenant they enter is from the breaking of the hymen.

As with ALL oaths, honoring the oath brings blessing and dishonoring the oath brings curses.

When sex is between a sacramentally married man and woman, it is the consummation of their marriage oath. It should be no surprise that marriages fall apart when one spouse commits adultery, because curses always follow breaking of a vow/oath. Similarly, the relationship troubles so many experience because they are engaging in prohibited sex outside of marriage, curses follow.

David


#4

(Obviously, sex in and of itself is neither good or evil, holy or unholy)

What God created is always Holy when done in the manner He intended. So sex between a man and wife is good and Holy.


#5

[quote=Donna P](Obviously, sex in and of itself is neither good or evil, holy or unholy)

What God created is always Holy when done in the manner He intended. So sex between a man and wife is good and Holy.
[/quote]

Didn’t he mention that above:

[quote=inflyt]The charity of Christ sanctifies all things. Therefore “pure” charity makes “pure” sex holy (not the other way around).
[/quote]


#6

Christ’s celibacy was necessary because of his unique, one time sacrafice for the sin of the world on the cross.(Romans 6:10, Hebrews 10:10) His flesh (and spirit) had to be without sin (1 Peter 1:9). The priesthood of Christ, i.e. all true believers (1 Peter 2:9), are free to be celibate or not depending on their individual circumstances. Whether or not they are celibate has no bearing on the importance of their service and ministry to the church. No one but Christ is without sin (1 John 1:8). Giving heed to the devilish doctrines of paganism and enforcing celibacy is clearly condemned by scripture (1 Timothy 4:1-3). I reject any religion which attempts to stratify the body of Christ, i.e. “priest” and “lay.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for seperating himself from other believers. (Galation 2:11-12) If one isn’t apart of the royal priesthood, then one isn’t a true Christian. All believers share the “keys of heaven” with the heart center of the church, Peter, who is now in heaven (Matthew 18:18). One of us abides in the truth, and the other does not. I doubt that either one of us is going to change our position on this. The Holy Ghost must first lead us into all truth, the bible only confirms and strenghens what a true Christian should already know.(1 John 2:27). Arguing over what a particular Bible verse means will not benefit any of us, and so I refuse to argue over the meaning of the above verses. I already know what they mean, and the gates of hell shall not convince me otherwise. If I am a heretic in the eyes of the “Roman Army,” then I glorify God.


#7

[quote=inflyt]Christ’s celibacy was necessary because of his unique, one time sacrafice for the sin of the world on the cross.(Romans 6:10, Hebrews 10:10) His flesh (and spirit) had to be without sin (1 Peter 1:9). The priesthood of Christ, i.e. all true believers (1 Peter 2:9), are free to be celibate or not depending on their individual circumstances. Whether or not they are celibate has no bearing on the importance of their service and ministry to the church. No one but Christ is without sin (1 John 1:8). Giving heed to the devilish doctrines of paganism and enforcing celibacy is clearly condemned by scripture (1 Timothy 4:1-3). I reject any religion which attempts to stratify the body of Christ, i.e. “priest” and “lay.” (1 Corinthians 1:10) Peter himself was rebuked by Paul for seperating himself from other believers. (Galation 2:11-12) If one isn’t apart of the royal priesthood, then one isn’t a true Christian. All believers share the “keys of heaven” with the heart center of the church, Peter, who is now in heaven (Matthew 18:18). One of us abides in the truth, and the other does not. I doubt that either one of us is going to change our position on this. The Holy Ghost must first lead us into all truth, the bible only confirms and strenghens what a true Christian should already know.(1 John 2:27). Arguing over what a particular Bible verse means will not benefit any of us, and so I refuse to argue over the meaning of the above verses. I already know what they mean, and the gates of hell shall not convince me otherwise. If I am a heretic in the eyes of the “Roman Army,” then I glorify God.
[/quote]

Hmmm… First you teach an orthodox doctrine and then a heresy? Then you embrace the heresy in a Catholic forum and refuse to discuss it further? I’d like to remind you where you are, in which you are a guest. I also refuse to talk to someone that is so stubborn and obstinate with not even a window slightly open in their minds. As St. Paul said there will be a time when people will have itching ears and appoint for themselves teachers to suit their own likings. In this case, make themselves a teacher.


#8

[quote=inflyt]Arguing over what a particular Bible verse means will not benefit any of us, and so I refuse to argue over the meaning of the above verses. I already know what they mean, and the gates of hell shall not convince me otherwise.
[/quote]

Good. I thought this thread went on longer than it needed to anyway. Closed minds make short discussions.


closed #9

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.