Tick-Tock Clock

Man is no match for death. Though man may try to elude or outsmart death, he will ultimately fall prey to it in the end. In his short story “The Masque of the Red Death,” Edgar Allan Poe illustrates man’s attempt to escape from the reality of death. In this story, Poe uses the ebony clock as a symbol of human mortality and as a reminder that man cannot evade death. The symbolic nature of the clock is clearly seen through the location of the clock, its voice, the effect it has on its hearers, and in its expiration at the end of the story.
The very location of the clock provides evidence of its symbolic nature. The clock is located in the room of black velvet and scarlet window panes, a room that is significant because all three of these elements serve to foreshadow the impending approach of the Red Death (209). The black interior of the room and the “blood-tinted panes” create a sense of disquiet in those who enter, and the presence of the ebony clock within this room further enhances their sense of uneasiness (207-208). As the night of dancing and revelry progresses, the merrymakers abandon this room altogether because it has an eerie quality and because they wish to place themselves as far away from the sound of the clock as possible (208). The revelers occupy the other apartments because “in them beat feverishly the heart of life” (208). This statement that life beats in all the other rooms serves as evidence that the heart of life does not beat in the “westwardly chamber” (208). They avoid the room with the scarlet panes and ebony clock because it is both foreboding and terrifying. The feeling of inexplicable dread that they experience both when they enter this room and when they hear the clock strike serves to illustrate that these individuals do not wish to be reminded of their own mortality.
The symbolic nature of the ebony clock is clearly seen in its voice. When the clock strikes every hour, its voice drowns out every other sound (207-208). The bold tone of the clock thus demands the attention of its hearers (207). There is nowhere the revelers can go to escape from its infernal chiming. Its “brazen lungs” peal out every hour, and every hour “all is still, and all is silent save the voice of the clock” (207-208). There is “a peculiar note and emphasis” present within the clock that compels those present to take notice (207). The sonorous voice of the clock thus serves to foreshadow the inevitability of death. Though this group of individuals seeks to escape from the reality of death present in the outside world, the presence of the clock and its hourly chiming provide a reminder that it is only a matter of time before death comes to all men.
Not only does the clock have a persistent voice, but the sound of its chime also has a strong effect on its hearers. The clock strikes a certain element of fear into the hearts of all those who hear it. As the chime of the clock rings out and everything stands in hushed silence, “it was observed that the giddiest grew pale, and the more aged and sedate passed their hands over their brows as if in confused reverie or meditation” (207). This reaction to the sound of the clock clearly points to human mortality. Those who hear the echoes of the clock are reminded that, though they are secluded in the midst of the abbey, time still passes with distinct regularity. The effect of the clock thus serves as a reminder of transience. Those present at the masquerade live in the seclusion of the abbey because they believe that by living in this sheltered manner they will not fall prey to the death ravaging the country outside (203). The hourly striking of the clock, however, beats steadily towards the grave.
The symbolic imagery of the clock culminates in the expiration of the clock at the end of the story. Throughout the narrative, the clock chimes every hour on the hour, pealing forth the approach of impending doom. When the last echoes of the clock fade away at midnight, the spectral figure of the Red Death appears (209). The fact that the Red Death arrives in concurrence with the striking of the clock illustrates the clock’s symbolic meaning. With the appearance of the Red Death, the revelers must come face-to-face with their own mortality (209). That which they seek to elude has finally caught up to them.
The fact that the spectral image of the Red Death comes to rest in the shadow of the ebony clock reveals a connection between the clock and death (210). As the revelers gaze upon the spectral figure standing before the ebony clock, they realize the futility of their attempts to cheat death (211). In the end, death has come upon them “like a thief in the night” (211). The revelers then begin to drop “one by one…in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel” (211). Though they had all scrupulously avoided this room, all of those at the masquerade perish in the scarlet-paned room in shadow of the ebony clock. Because they are human, they are slaves to time and thus to morality.
Not only do the people expire in the presence of the ebony clock, but the clock itself ceases to function as the last reveler perishes (211). The fact that the clock expires with the last of the merrymakers reveals the symbolic nature of the clock. Throughout the story, the clock serves as a warning and somber reminder that man is mortal and a slave to time. Now, as the Red Death claims the life of those who have sought to elude him, the work of the ebony clock is done.
Ultimately, man is bound by death. Despite his best efforts to avoid the inevitable, all men are mortal and their days numbered. Edgar Allen Poe’s use of the ebony clock as a symbol of human mortality clearly shows the futility of man’s attempts to avoid death. Throughout “The Masque of the Red Death,” the ebony clock also serves as a haunting reminder that man is transient and bound by time. Though man may think he has outsmarted death and even ignore the reminders of his own transience, he will fall prey to death in the end.

Poetic Justice in Milton's Samson Agonistes

God is a God of justice. He rewards the good according to their virtue and punishes the wicked according to their vice. The concept of justice is clearly evident within John Milton’s poem Samson Agonistes. In this work, poetic justice is seen in Samson’s punishment, his repentance, and in the defeat of the Philistines.

In the beginning of the poem, Samson fully acknowledges the justice of God. He freely admits his pride and his weak-mindedness (52, 55). His lack of wisdom and intellectual blindness has led to his present slavery and his state of physical blindness (66-67). Because he freely acknowledges his sin, he is also able to recognize and accept the justice of God. John Ebbs states, “[Samson] bears no malice toward God for the punishment he has received; on the contrary, he feels that God’s ways are just” (383). Though Samson does not understand why God gave him such strength and then allowed his downfall, he realizes that he “must not quarrel with the will / Of highest dispensation, which herein / Haply had ends above [his] reach to know” (60-62). Though his punishment causes him to despair, he realizes he is not punished above merit. The Chorus likewise acknowledges the justice of God. Poetic justice is seen when they remind Samson that he could only be effective “while virtue was [the] mate” of his strength (173). According to E. M. W. Tillyard, “[Pride] was the primal cause of Samson’s fall” (337). Samson fell to sin because he allowed pride to take over his mind and thus replace virtue with vice. Rather than rely upon God as the source of his strength and power, he looked to and placed confidence within himself. Poetic justice is thus seen in that God only blesses Samson when he walks according to virtue, and punishment comes when he succumbs to vice.

After the Chorus reminds Samson of the poetic justice of God, they urge him not to lose hope. They encourage him to “tax not divine disposal,” because God may yet bring about some good from this evil (210). They reassure him of the justice of God, stating, “Just are the ways of God, / And justifiable to men” (294). Samson is charged not to “give the reigns to wand’ring thought” or doubt the just decrees of God (300-303). Though man may not fully understand the ways God works, his just nature should not be doubted.

While Samson and the Chorus realize and accept the justice of God, Manoa struggles with the punishment that God has inflicted upon his son. Though he realizes that Samson sinned by placing “ever-failing trust / In mortal strength,” he questions the judgment of God. Manoa cannot understand why God would gift Samson with such great strength since that very gift has led to Samson’s downfall (358-360). Manoa also cannot understand the magnitude of God’s punishment. He states, “Methinks whom God hath chosen once / To worthiest deeds, if he through frailty err, / He should not so o’erwhelm, and as thrall / Subject him to so foul indignities” (368-371). In Manoa’s mind, God’s punishment is disproportionate to Samson’s actual crime and thus does not display true justice.
Samson gently rebukes his father for questioning God’s justice. He tells his father, “Nothing of all these evils hath befall’n me / But justly; I myself have brought them on, / sole author I, sole cause” (374-376). According to John S. Bennett, the idea of God’s justice is very important to Samson for the following reasons:
A just God does not reward evil or punish virtue; if a person feels an affliction to be from God—that is, if he experiences a sense during his tribulations of heaven’s desertion—then he must accept his suffering as merited, and its justice a8s comprehensible; he must seek out its cause and its cure. The spiritual fall of a moral creature is always the result of sin. (323)
Samson acknowledges that God’s punishment is indeed a result of sin. He is grieved over his sin and despondent in his punishment, but he does not doubt the justice of the punishment as he is fully cognizant of his own sin.

As Samson speaks with his father, he comes to an even deeper realization of the gravity of his sin. Manoa points out that Samson’s downfall has led the Philistines to honor their pagan god, “and God, / Besides whom is no God, compared with idols, / Disglorified, blasphemed, and had in scorn / By th’ idolatrous rout amidst their wine” (440-443). Though Samson places full faith in God’s ability to act and defend his name among the pagans, the gravity of his sins also crushes him. He states that he deserves to “pay…[his] punishment; and expiate, if possible, [his] crime” (489-490).

Samson’s belief in the justice of God leads him to repentance—the correct response to judgment and punishment. According to Krouse, “Repentance is expressed in nearly every utterance of Samson in the poem. He has been humbled, and he is now thoroughly ashamed of his former pride, his reliance on mere physical prowess, his garrulity and weakness in revealing God’s secret” (104). Though Samson acknowledges that his punishment is deserved, he continues to place hope in the mercy of God. He does not “yet despair of his final pardon / Whose ear is ever open; and his eye / Gracious to re-admit the suppliant” (1171-1173).

The encounter between Harapha and Samson foreshadows the poetic justice which God will bring about against the Philistines. When Harapha comes to Samson and derides the Most High God, Samson responds by placing his faith in God’s ability. He shows humility and confidence in the forgiveness of God when he states that, if God so desires, he could provide Samson with the strength to fight and prevail against Harapha (1176-1177). Harapha derides him and points out that he is now enslaved to the very people he had set out to conquer (1124-1126).

In the end, however, Samson does indeed deliver his people from the yoke of the Philistines. When the Philistine officer arrives to bring Samson to Dagon’s feast, he states that he “shall [not] abuse [his] consecrated gift / Of strength, again returning with [his] hair” and use it for the glory of false gods (1354-1355). He has learned the lesson of his past transgression and refuses to “add a greater sin / By prostituting holy things to idols” (1357-1358). He agrees to go with the messenger only when he feels the stirring of God within his heart urge him (1381-1389). James H. Holly makes the following observation: “By confronting his own guilt without evasion, and by resisting the temptation to doubt that God’s ways are just or to fear for the ultimate triumph of his cause, Samson has won the right to be put to proof a second time” (287). In other words, Samson’s correct response to the judgment of God and his attitude of repentance has allowed Samson to fulfill the purpose promised him at birth. As he leaves, the Chorus foreshadows the coming event when they pray that the Spirit that was once upon Samson will come upon him again in his time of need (1435-1437).

Manoa further foreshadows the poetic justice that is to come. He is convinced that Samson’s returning strength signals that God is going “to use him further yet in some great service” (1499). He believes that it would be useless for Samson to wallow idly in misery and blindness for the rest of his days and thus clings to the hope that God will restore Samson’s strength. Even as Manoa speaks these words, the sounds of desolation reach him from a distance. The Chorus cries out that Samson “is slaying them” and that the uproar comes from the slaughter of the foe (1517-1518).

The messenger brings news of the ultimate destruction of the Philistines. Samson is indeed the perpetrator of justice upon the Philistines. His death “sets all free” and he has “paid his ransom now and full discharge” (1571-1572). Ebbs states, “Poetic justice has been shown, for Providence has rendered eternal punishment on the idolatrous Philistines, and Samson has been given his glorious reward” (388). Samson has repented of his sin, confessed his fault, and returned to virtue. And this return to virtue is rewarded by God.

Though the decrees and judgments of God do not always make sense to humankind, the ways of God are always just. He humbles the proud and exalts the humble. This concept of poetic justice is clearly seen throughout Samson Agonistes. God punishes the pride of Samson, rewards his repentance, and ultimately uses him to bring about the destruction of his enemies.


Works Cited
Bennett, John S. “A Reading of Samson Agonistes.” The Cambridge Companion to Milton. Ed. Dennis Danielson. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999. 218-239.
Ebbs, John Dale. “Milton’s Treatment of Poetic Justice in Samson Agonistes.” Modern Language Quarterly 22 (1961): 377-389.
Hanford, James Holly. A Milton Handbook. New York: F. S. Croft & Co., 1954.
Krouse, F. Michael. Milton’s Samson and the Christian Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949.
Milton, John. Samson Agonistes. The Complete Poems. Penguin Books: London, 1998. 465-511.
Tillyard, E. M. W. Milton. London: Chatto and Windus, 1930.

Divine Light: Two Views

According to Ecclesiastes 3:11, God has placed eternity within the hearts of all men. Whether consciously aware of it or not, man has a thirst and hunger for that which transcends humanity. This desire for the transcendent is seen within the works “A Divine and Supernatural Light” by Jonathan Edwards and “Nature” by Ralph Waldo Emerson. Both of these works explore the concept of divine knowledge, addressing man’s innate desire for something greater than himself. Although these works both contain a similar theme, the authors come to different conclusions about the way in which divine light can be obtained, the way in which it is revealed, and the way in which man needs redemption.

In “Nature,” Ralph Waldo Emerson emphasizes the created order and operates under the belief that divine light can be obtained through creation. According to Emerson, “We must trust to the perfection of the creation so far, as to believe that whatever curiosity the order of things has awakened in our minds, the order of things can satisfy” (493). In other words, nature provides all answers to all questions. Rather than being merely material, nature also contains a spiritual element which is essential to its perfection (498). It is in the “eternal calm” of beauty that man finds himself (496). Nature serves to satisfy the soul’s desire for beauty and also the intellect’s desire for reason. It functions as a symbol of particular spiritual facts and also a symbol of spirit itself (500). Through looking at the natural realm, one comes into direct contact with the spiritual realm because nature, and thus man, is directly related to God (515).Thus in Emerson’s view, God plays no role in the direct communication of divine light.

Throughout “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” on the other hand, Jonathan Edwards argues that divine knowledge can only be wholly obtained through the person of Jesus Christ as he is revealed in scripture. Contrary to Emerson, Edwards argues that the divine and supernatural light is imparted to the soul through God and cannot be obtained by any purely natural means (182). He states that divine light cannot be realized merely through the imagination nor through what is simply seen “with the bodily eyes” (184). Edwards goes on to say, “A person may have affecting views of the things of religion, and yet be destitute of spiritual light” (185). In other words, no matter how engaged a man is in the pursuit of or perception of spiritual things, his knowledge is meaningless unless he has come to a true view of the divine light which is Jesus Christ. While nature can lend to the understanding of divine light, one cannot attain a true understanding of divine knowledge through purely natural means.

One main difference between Emerson and Edwards is their view of the ultimate revelation of divine knowledge. As previously seen, Emerson holds to the belief that man can find divine knowledge through the beauty of nature. Man rests upon God as a plant rests upon the earth and “has infinite access to the entire mind of the Creator, [and] is himself the creator in the finite” (515). In other words, humanity needs nothing more than nature to fully know the mind of the Creator. According to Edwards, however, divine knowledge must be given directly by God and cannot be obtained by natural means. Edwards states that “man was made to honor and glorify his Creator” (191). Rather than glorifying nature itself, man is to glorify the One who created nature and caused all things to come into being. Emerson views man as inherently good and thus not in need of the grace of God, while Edwards presents a view that requires the revelation of divine light to begin with God and be responded to by man.

Edwards also points out that there is a difference between God’s Word and man’s word. He states, “It is rational to suppose, that when God speaks to the world, there should be something in His word vastly different from men’s word” (190). While Emerson operates under the presupposition that nature is spiritual and thus serves as its own spiritual interpreter, Edwards propones that there is a difference between the spiritual and the natural which can only be understood through the divine revelation of God. While one can recognize the spiritual elements in the world apart from a true understanding of the divine light, one cannot truly understand those elements unless illumined by the divine light of Christ.

Emerson and Edwards also greatly differ in their views of redemption. According to Emerson, “The problem of restoring to the world original and eternal beauty is solved by the redemption of the soul” (518). He goes on to explain that this redemption comes about as the result of man becoming fully united with himself through nature. Redemption of the soul requires that man equally reconcile the natural with the spiritual and come to understand that “nature is not fixed but fluid. Spirit alters, moulds, makes it” (519). Each man must learn to use all of his faculties as a spiritual exercise in order that God may “go forth anew into the creation” (519). Again, Emerson focuses on the ability of man to fully obtain the spiritual apart from any actual interaction with God. In his view, nature is part of God and thus the revelation of God.

Edwards, however, presents a very different view of redemption. Indeed, the divine light of which Edwards speaks hinges upon the very person and work of Jesus Christ and the knowledge of this light involves the acceptance of the grace God freely offers. He states, “The scripture speaks of a knowledge of God’s dispensation, and covenant of mercy, and way of grace towards His people, as peculiar to the saints and given only by God” (189). Man has nothing to do with the impartation of the divine light. It is revealed by God to man as a means of redemption and reconciliation. Contrary to the view of Emerson, nature has nothing whatsoever to do with man receiving the divine and supernatural light. In Edward’s view, the things of God differ entirely from the things of man. He states, “We cannot rationally doubt but that things divine, which appertain to the supreme Being, are vastly different from the things that are human; that there is a high, glorious, and godlike excellency in them that does most remarkably difference them from the things that are of men” (190). Because the things of God are so different from the things of man, God chooses to reveal himself to man through a divine and supernatural light.

Emerson and Edwards provide two strikingly different views on the question of eternity within the hearts of man. Because God has created man as spiritual beings, he longs for the light that only God can reveal. But while Emerson and Edwards both acknowledge the need for the spiritual, they take very different approaches to how the spiritual may be obtained. In the end, the only way to obtain divine knowledge is through the revelation of God to man.


Works Cited
Edwards, Jonathan. “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. Norton & Company, 2008. 181-193.

Emerson, Ralph Waldo. “Nature.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature. 7th ed. Ed. Nina Baym. Norton & Company, 2008. 492-519.

John Donne: "Batter my heart..."

Batter my heart, three-personed God; for, you
As yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow me, and bend
Your force, to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
I, like a usurped town, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in me, me should defend,
But is captivated, and proves weak or untrue,
Yet dearly'I love you, and would be loved fain,
But am betrothed unto your enemy,
Divorce me, untie, or break that knot again,
Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except you enthral me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.

Singleness: A Blessing Or A Curse?

According to a recent survey by Barna, “more than four out of every ten adults in the United States [are] not married.”[1] He goes on to note that with such a proportion, the number of single people in the United States alone “is larger than the total national population of all but eleven of the world’s 192 nations.”[2] Based on these numbers, it seems necessary to address the number of single people present within the American church today. According to David L. Smith, “one out of every three adults” in the Christian community is single.[3] Unfortunately, many churches today do not address the large single population within their churches. In many contexts, singleness is viewed as abnormal and looked down upon by members of the church. Many singles seem to see their time of singleness as nothing more than a middle ground between adolescence and marriage and seem to be at a loss as to how to occupy the time in between. While marriage is indeed a gift from God, it is important for single people to also view their time of singleness as a special time from God. This paper will look at the issue of singleness, arguing that singleness should be viewed as a gift from God and that single people should use their time of singleness to minister within the local church.

The main New Testament text used to discuss singleness is 1 Corinthians 7. In this passage, Paul provides three specific sets of instructions: first, all individuals, whether single or married, are to remain as they are and find contentment in their current status (1 Cor. 7:8-11). Second, certain individuals should avoid marrying in light of the “present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). Lastly, Paul states that singleness is favorable in that a single person can be more concerned about the things of the Lord than can a married person (1 Cor. 7:32-35).

According to Rosner, “Paul’s basic advice in every case is not to seek a change in status; the married ought not to seek divorce and the unmarried ought not to seek marriage. The guiding principle of contentment in one’s life situation is taken up directly and reinforced.”[4] Paul exhorts the Corinthians to live “as the Lord has assigned to each” (1 Cor. 7:17). According to Garland, it is important for each one to live according to God’s specific calling because “to try to become something one is not or to expect others to do so is a recipe for disaster.”[5] According to Hoffeditz, “Paul does not pit the two marital states against each other, but stresses the significance of each gift. Both are given by God.”[6]Regardless of whether one is married or single, one should ultimately conduct oneself in a way that is pleasing to God and fulfills God’s calling.[7]

The second thing Paul addresses in this chapter is “this present distress” (1 Cor. 7:26). Much speculation exists as to the exact nature of the distress Paul refers to. According to Garland, “End-time circumstances determine his advice, but his comments reveal that he would regard the unmarried state as preferable, regardless of imminent end, because marriage necessitates dividing one’s loyalties between pleasing a spouse and serving God.”[8] According to Hoffeditz, “Marriage can distract from the truth that we are pilgrims in this world and that our citizenship is in heaven. Singleness creates looser ties with this world and directs our attention to the promises of an immediate future.”[9] Rosner also agrees with this view, stating that Paul seeks to provide Christians with an eschatological perspective and to remind them that this world is temporary and that they should not become overly immersed in the world.[10]

Lastly, Paul states that believers may remain single in order to serve the Lord (1 Cor. 7:32-35). He points out that the married life brings many troubles with it, and it is thus appropriate for the single man to stay as he is.[11] Calvin goes on to explain, “Paul wishes Christians to be free from anxieties so that they may devote all their thoughts and efforts to the Lord.”[12] Singleness is acceptable when the single person is using his time to serve God wholeheartedly. The single person is able to serve God in an even greater capacity than the married person because he does not have the same cares and concerns as a married person. Singleness is thus preferable “so that we might cleave to God, with nothing to separate us from Him.”[13]

The early church fathers seemed to view singleness as preferable to marriage, but while celibacy was encouraged, it was not mandated. Tertullian argued that celibacy is preferable to marriage, but he also clearly stated that it is better to marry than to fornicate.[14] Clement of Alexandria also maintained the view of celibacy as best but marriage as good. He states, “Our view is that we welcome as blessed the state of abstinence from marriage in those to whom it has been granted by God.”[15]

During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church began to require celibacy among the clergy as well as the monastic orders. Indeed, celibacy was “rigidly imposed by Church law upon all members of religious orders and all clergy above a certain rank.”[16] According to Bainton, “The imposition of clerical celibacy in the Middle Ages met with restricted success.”[17] Many among the clergy refused to leave their wives and many possessed concubines. The standard of celibacy was thus hypocritical and not held in high regard by many monks and clergymen.

The Reformers staunchly opposed the enforced celibacy of the Church.[18] They believed that the possibilities of sinning through hypocritical celibacy were greater than those which could be committed in marriage.[19] According to Bainton, “Nowhere did the Reformation introduce a greater change than in domestic relations. Religious celibacy was repudiated in favor of marriage.”[20] According to Wilson, “Martin Luther has bequeathed to the contemporary church perhaps the most significant legacy on the issue of singleness and marriage.”[21] Luther argued for an end to unchaste chastity and stressed Paul’s mandate that it is better to marry than to burn with passion.[22] In Luther’s mind, chastity was not impossible, but he believed that the unmarried would suffer from their lack of sexual gratification, and thus marriage was better than monasticism.[23] According to Luther, there are three different states: marriage, virginity, and widowhood. “They are all good. None is to be despised. The virgin is not to be esteemed above the widow, nor the widow above the wife, any more than the tailor is to be esteemed above the butcher.”[24] In other words, the Reformers affirmed the legitimacy of both marriage and singleness as found in 1 Corinthians 7.

How should the church view singleness? Should it be looked down upon as a disease which needs a cure? Or should it be viewed as a gift to be used for God’s glory? Based on the Scriptural evidence, it seems that both singleness and marriage are affirmed by God and that both are seen as gifts that, though different, can be used for God’s glory. Two biblical characters stand out to exemplify the way in which God can use singles in ministry. In the Old Testament, Jeremiah was commanded not to marry (Jer. 16:1-2). In Jeremiah’s case, he was able to serve God in a greater capacity because of his singleness. Due to the hard times in which he lived, it was expedient that he forego marriage in order to be free from distraction and greater trouble.

The apostle Paul also remained single throughout his entire ministry. Indeed, his exhortation to the community of singles at Corinth urges them to remain as he is—serving the Lord in a state of singleness (1 Cor. 7:7). Though single, Paul had an abundant, fruitful ministry for the Lord. Far from being limited by his singleness, Paul used it as a gift from God for the furtherance of the gospel and the edification of the church.

The issue of singleness remains very prevalent in the church today. While the number of singles attending church continues to grow, it seems that the issue of singleness is rarely addressed or, when it is addressed, is viewed in a negative light. While some affirm the single lifestyle, some condemn it and even view it as unnatural. According to Raymond Brown, “Seldom do singles find the suggestion that a single is anything but an incomplete couple or that to be single can be a fulfilling, rewarding, freely chosen life-style, rather than a fearful lonely waiting ground for marriage.”[25] Brown goes on to say that many singles find that the church is geared more towards the family unit, and many singles feel left out of the body as a result.[26] While it is indeed important for the church to develop a strong support of the family, it is likewise important that this support of the family not result in the exclusion of singles. Rather than choosing to be uninvolved in the life of the church, single people should become deeply involved in ministry within the community of Christ.

Wilson points out, “It is interesting how the unmarried person is seen automatically as having more time to serve God and the married person as having less.”[27] Being single most certainly does not exclude someone from ministering within the local church. Indeed, single people should be some of the most involved people in the local church. According to Andrew Farmer, single adults have “a precious opportunity to make an impact on this world, but that opportunity begins through serving in the context of a local church, God’s tangible presence in the world.”[28] Rather than seeking to be served and have their needs catered to, singles should make a conscious, deliberate effort to become plugged into the life and ministry of the church.

Many singles struggle with loneliness and a lack of contentment. Brown points out, “Some people experience loneliness and isolation partly because they avoid intimacy.”[29] H. I Smith points out, “Many singles are hamstrung by a poor self-image. To some the word single is as offensive as a racial slur. Some have built high walls around their spirits to discourage penetration. So they live in a self-designed prison.”[30] Rather than cutting themselves off from others and holding their own personal pity party, singles should rather seek to become involved in the community of the church and develop lasting relationships with fellow believers in the church. Indeed, “reaching out to new friends is a necessary skill for the single adult.”[31] Humans have been created as relational beings. Without developing intimate relationships with other believers, the life of a single person will indeed seem empty and unsatisfying.

Smith argues that the word “intimacy” needs to be brought back from its merely sexual connotation.[32] He points out that “Jesus’ framework for intimacy was not in marriage, but in close friendships.”[33] Smith urges singles to pursue intimate relationships with others of their own sex and not be governed by the fear that others may interpret a good friendship as a homosexual relationship.[34] He concludes, “The church has too long allowed the world to define what friendship and intimacy are all about. It is time that it regained the initiative. It needs to encourage all adults—married and single alike—to develop meaningful and satisfying relationships.”[35]

Closely related to the concept of intimacy and deep friendships is that of community. According to Smith, “A sense of community has its roots deep in the Scriptures.”[36] Christ confirmed the necessity of community among believers (John 13:35). Smith argues, “The contemporary church desperately needs to recover the New Testament practice of community.”[37] Indeed, a proper sense of community needs to be maintained between both married and single people. Married people should not exclude single people from the life of the church merely because they are not married. Nor should married people seek to couple up singles.[38] Rather, married adults should seek to encourage and build up single adults without viewing single adults as lesser individuals because of their singleness.

Singles should also avoid viewing their time of singleness as “me time.” Hoffeditz points out, “The unmarried life is not about self-indulgence but about selflessness. It is about glorifying the Lord in a unique manner.”[39] Again, singles should use this time to develop a God-ward and, as a result, an others-oriented focus. To view one’s time of singleness as nothing more than an opportunity to indulge in selfishness is to miss the point altogether. Rather, singles should seek to glorify God and serve the local church, using this time in their lives to be effective in ministry in ways that would be difficult once married. The single adult should arrange his time in such a way that the church is at the top of his priorities.

Singleness should indeed be viewed as a gift. Rather than becoming bitter about their singleness, singles should use that time in their lives to effectively serve the body of Christ. While marriage is certainly a gift from God, singleness is likewise a gift. While it is not wrong for singles to desire and pursue marriage, they should not become so caught up in that pursuit that they neglect to serve Christ and his body.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bainton, Roland Herbert. Early and Medieval Christianity. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962.

_____. Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther. New York: Abington-Cokesbury Press, 1950.

_____. Sex, Love, and Marriage: A Christian Survey. London: Collins, 1966.

Brown, Raymond Kay. Reach Out to Singles: A Challenge to Ministry. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

Calvin, John. Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.

Cameron, Euan. The European Reformation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991.

Farmer, Andrew. The Rich Single Life: Abundance, Opportunity & Purpose in God. Gaithersburg: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1998.

Hoffeditz, David M. They Were Single Too: 8 Biblical Role Models. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

Lea, Henry Charles. An Historical Sketch of Sacerdotal Celibacy in the Christian Church. Philadelphia: J. P. Lippincott.

Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works. Edited by Jaroslav Pelikan. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1955.

_____. Reformation Writings. Translated by Bertram Lee Woolf. London: Lutterworth Press, 1952.

_____. What Luther Says: An Anthology. Edited by Edwald M. Plass. Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.

Lyon, William. A Pew for One, Please: The Church and the Single Person. New York: Seabury Press, 1977.

May, Alistair Scott. The Body for the Lord: Sex and Identity in 1^st Corinthians 5-7. London: T&T Clark, 2004.

Oulton, John Ernest Leonard, trans. Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick. London: SCM Press, 1954.

Payne, Dorothy. Singleness. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1983.

Smith, David L. “Towards a Theology of Singleness.” Didaskalia 1 (1989): 34-41.

Tertullian. Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy. Westminster: Newman Press, 1951.

Widder, Wendy. A Match Made in Heaven: How Singles and the Church Can Live Happily Ever After. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003.

Wilson, Philip B. Being Single in the Church Today: Insights from History and Personal Stories. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishers, 2006

Yarbrough, O. Larry. Not Like the Gentiles: Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986.

---

[1] George Barna, “A Revealing Look at Three Unique Single Adult Populations,” retrieved from

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=108

[2] Ibid.

[3] David L. Smith, “Towards a Theology of Singleness,” Didaskalia 1 (1989): 34.

[4] Brian S. Rosner, Paul., Scripture, & Ethics (Baker Books: Grand Rapids, 1994), 147.

[5] David E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (Baker Academic: Grand Rapids, 2003), 302.

[6] David M. Hoffeditz, They Were Single Too: 8 Biblical Role Models (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2005.

[7] Ibid., 304.

[8] Garland, 325.

[9] Hoffeditz, 15.

[10] Rosner, 163.

[11] John Calvin, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries: 1 & 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), 135.

[12] Ibid., 161.

[13] Ibid., 164.

[14] Tertullian, Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage: To His Wife, An Exhortation to Chastity, Monogamy (Westminster: Newman Press, 1951), 12.

[15] John Ernest Leonard Oulton, trans., Alexandrian Christianity: Selected Translations of Clement and Origen with Introduction and Notes by John Ernest Leonard Oulton and Henry Chadwick (London: SCM Press, 1954), 42.

[16] Euan Cameron (), 115.

[17] Bainton, Early and Medieval Christianity (Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), 77.

[18] Cameron, The European Reformation (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), 151.

[19] Ibid., 402.

[20] Bainton, Early and Medieval Christianity, 173.

[21] Philip B. Wilson, Being Single In the Church Today: Insights from History and Personal Stories (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishers, 2006), 9-10.

[22] Bainton, Here I Stand (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950), 200.

[23] Ibid., 300.

[24] Ibid., 352.

[25] Raymond Kay Brown, Reach Out to Singles: A Challenge to Ministry (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1979), 26.

[26] Ιbid., 39.

[27] Wilson, 173.

[28] Andrew Farmer, The Rich Single Life: Abundance, Opportunity & Purpose in God (Gaithersburg: Sovereign Grace Ministries, 1998), 74-75.

[29] Brown, 41.

[30] Harold Ivan Smith, Positively Single (Wheaton: Victor Books, 1986), 142.

[31] Ibid., 39.

[32] Smith, 37.

[33] Ibid.

[34] Ibid., 38.

[35] Ibid.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Ibid., 39.

[38] Brown, 25.

[39] Hoffeditz, 16.

The Happy Medium

Virtue—honor—justice. Throughout the centuries, these words have conjured up a plethora of images. Honor may come to mind in the form of a knight in shining armor, virtue in the form of a young maiden, and justice in the form of a presiding judge. Men have been fascinated with these concepts for generations, seeking to understand what they are and how they can best be applied to society. In Books IV and V of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that in order to rightly apply virtue and justice, one must find the proper balance and act accordingly. According to Aristotle, there is a fine line to be drawn between virtue and vice.

Aristotle differentiates between “the laudable mediums which are the virtues” and then “defines the mediums that are not virtues but passions.”[1] The man of true character is one who is willing to disregard himself in order to give freely to others. A virtuous man contains liberality of character and acts with correct motivation. According to Oates, the doctrine of the mean is “absolutely central to his conception of ethical values,” and Aristotle provides evidences of the mean within virtue.[2] Aristotle’s various concepts of virtues and vices are perfectly illustrated in many of the characters within Geoffrey Chaucer’s The Canterbury Tales. In order to better understand Aristotle’s concept of the virtuous man, it is helpful to see how these principles can be applied within actual personalities.

The character of the Parson within The Canterbury Tales illustrates an individual who displays a balance of virtue. The Parson follows the Aristotelian concept that the truly virtuous man is one who understands proper balance and is not given to excess.[3] He is a temperate man in that he realizes that he has little and therefore lives according to his means.[4] He further meets Aristotle’s definition of a liberal man in that he displays goodness and excellence. He exhibits liberality in that he shows moderation in both giving and taking. He realizes the extent of his fortune and is willing to give as he is able. He thus follows Aristotle’s model of the liberal man as one who disregards self but at the same time displays moderation.[5] Throughout Book IV of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle places great emphasis upon the character with which one performs an act rather than merely upon the act itself. It is quite possible to perform a right and noble action with completely wrong and ignoble motives. The character of the Parson provides an example of one who is truly noble and liberal minded in that he shows fair behavior, gives according to the mean, and follows the very things which he teaches.[6]

Not only does Aristotle speak of virtues, he also differentiates between “the laudable mediums which are the virtues” and then “defines the mediums that are not virtues but passions.”[7] In other words, Aristotle provides examples of virtues which have been carried too far and have thus become vices. One such vice is illiberality. Illiberality could be defined both as deficiency in giving and excess in taking.[8] The character of the Pardoner in The Canterbury Tales provides a prime example of the illiberal man. The Pardoner displays excess in taking when he swindles those around him in order to gain.[9] While the one who observes the mean is “always himself” and truthful in all things,[10] an illiberal man such as the Pardoner tells deliberate falsehoods in order to increase his gain.[11]

According to Aristotle, the prospects of a cure for the illiberal man such as the Pardoner are bleak.[12] Aquinas states the following two reasons for the incurable nature of illiberality: first, “human life tends to be defective;” and secondly, “that to which man is naturally inclined cannot easily be removed from him.”[13] An illiberal man cannot be cured of his illiberality because he has deliberately cultivated it over time. Rather than choosing to cultivate goodness of character by following the mean, “vicious character is a tendency to exceed or fall short of the Mean.”[14] One who continually follows the tendency to exceed or fall short thus becomes caught up in a pattern which eventually cannot be broken—he becomes the illiberal man.

Aristotle’s discussion of personal virtue provides a natural segue into the consideration of justice. In Book IV, Aristotle discusses the concept of internal virtue or the cultivation of one’s character. In Book V, Aristotle speaks of justice which is an external display of internal virtue. According to Aristotle, justice is complete virtue “because he that has it is able to exhibit virtue in dealing with his neighbors, and not merely in his private affairs.”[15] The theme of Book V is “the application of the doctrine of the Mean to justice,” and each topic treated within the book relates back to the Mean.[16]

Aristotle discusses two kinds of justice. The first type of justice consists of the distribution of common goods.[17] This concept of common goods refers to things such as the establishment of enterprises. The second category of justice is that of transactions which take place between two specific individuals. This form of justice relates to the proper exchange of goods between two people. Transactions between two people should not result in inequality, but should be a fair exchange of goods.[18] In both forms of justice, “the just outcome is a mean between unfair gain and unfair loss.”[19] The character of the Pardoner, for example, would be considered unjust because he receives more than his due benefit. True justice in transactions requires that the mean be preserved in that both parties benefit equally.

True virtue requires the cultivation of balance in all things. Without the development of personal virtue, justice could not exist within a society. The development of personal virtue is then displayed in the way people relate to one another within society. According to Aristotle’s view, virtue and justice require that moderation be observed in all things.


[1] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1993), 287.
[2] Whitney Jennings Oates, Aristotle and the Problem of Value (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963), 274.
[3] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 68.
[4] Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 16.
[5] Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2004), 67.
[6] Geoffrey Chaucer, The Canterbury Tales (London: Penguin Books, 2003), 16-17.
[7] Saint Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (Notre Dame: Dumb Ox Books, 1993), 287.
[8] Aristotle, 70.
[9] Chaucer, 243.
[10] Aristotle, 84.
[11] Chaucer, 242.
[12] Aristotle, 69.
[13] Aquinas, 306.
[14] D. J. Allen, The Philosophy of Aristotle (London: Oxford University Press, 1952), 171.
[15] Aristotle, 91.
[16] W. F. R. Hardie, Aristotle’s Ethical Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 184.
[17] D. S. Hutchinson, The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, ed. Jonathan Barnes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 222.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Hutchinson, 223.

Saved In Childbearing? A Look at 1 Timothy 2:15

The proper role of women within Christianity has long been a topic of hot debate and argument. In a culture that is being overrun by feministic ideas, it is important to keep a proper understanding of the function of women within the church. Rather than viewing passages such as 1 Timothy 2:15 as limiting the role of women to bearing children, it is important to take passages such as these in their proper context and arrive at a correct understanding of their practical and theological implications. This paper will look at several different interpretations of 1 Timothy 2:15, critically assessing them, and concluding that this passage is referring to the Christological promise of Genesis 3.


In approaching the text of 1 Timothy 2:15[1], it is important to take it in its larger context. The verses preceding this passage discuss the proper role of women within church and ministry. The apostle Paul provides instructions for the proper attire and attitude of women (1 Tim. 2:9), stating that women should be characterized by godliness rather than external adornments (1 Tim. 2:10). Women should also receive instruction with a quiet and submissive attitude (1 Tim. 2:11), and they should not perform a teaching role within the church (1 Tim. 2:12). He further references the proper authority role of the man being the head of the woman by referring to the creation order of Adam and Eve (1 Tim. 2:13-14). Verse 15 thus falls into the larger context of the role of women within the church and particularly follows the reference to the creation order of Adam and Eve.


In approaching verse 15, there are several grammatical and structural considerations that must be taken. First is the presence of the verb σωθήσεται. This verb appears in the third person passive future singular form and there is some debate as to what subject it refers to.
The debate occurs as a result of the second verb, μείνωσιν which appears in the aorist active subjunctive plural form. Some state that it is possible that the singular σωθήσεται refers to Eve while the plural μείνωσιν refers to Christian women in general.[2] Because there is no overt subject for the verb, “the subject of the verb corresponds in some way with the last mentioned possible antecedent,” γυνὴ.[3] Others conclude that there is far too great an emphasis placed upon the tense change within this passage and that based on the context, “there is no linguistic or grammatical distinction between the two” but that it is merely referencing women in general.[4] The argument has also been made that verses 13-14 were referring to Eve as “the representative of her sex, womankind,” and that through this example the apostle was illustrating the consequences of Eve’s mistake.[5] Thus the transition to the plural is merely reinforcing Paul’s use of Eve as personating womankind.[6] Argument also exists over the preposition διὰ, noting that the genitive form “denotes agency, by means of,” but διὰ can also mean “during.”[7] The passage could thus either mean that salvation occurs by means of childbearing or that salvation occurs during the act of childbearing.

There are several different interpretations of this passage. According to Kroeger, women being saved through childbirth refers to the promise to Eve that her seed will bring redemption, and that the apostle was also refuting Gnostic doctrines that had crept into the church.[8] Kroeger states, “This was precisely the complaint of the author of the pastoral Epistles: that stories out of the Jewish tradition are being told in a twisted form and that they are being heeded. The tales, peddled about by old women, express opposition to God and turn many away from the truth.”[9] According to this interpretation, the author of 1 Timothy is reinforcing the feministic role of women within the church and opposing the false teaching of the Gnostics which placed a greater emphasis on the importance of the man.

Stanley E. Porter also points out the prevalence of false doctrine within the church and the way in which the author addresses it. There were individuals who had crept into the church who were promoting unsound doctrine (1 Tim. 1:3) which was giving rise to “myths and endless genealogies” which caused speculation rather than serving to further true faith. They were following after devious spirits and the teaching of demons (1 Tim. 4:1), and men were being told to refrain from marriage (1 Tim. 4:3).[10] As a result of these false doctrines, the author is writing to inform the believers of the proper way in which to order household affairs. “It is easy to conclude that the encouraging of ascetic practices, combined with shunning of the women’s domestic roles, resulted in sexual abstinence or similar practices which were considered by the author to have missed the mark.”[11] Thus, Porter argues, the author is encouraging the proper function of sexual relations within marriage, resulting in the bearing of children.

Another view states that this passage occurs in reference to the Imago Dei. According to William Hendriksen, for the Christian mother, birthing children allows women to see the image of God reflected in her child.[12] He states, “Child-bearing will be a means of salvation for the Christian mother, for what Christian mother does not experience the inner delight, joy, blessing, and glory in seeing the image of her Savior reflected in little ones who belong to him?”[13] Hendrikson further states that this passage also refers to the curse that was decreed upon Eve in that she must now submit to her husband, and experience pain in childbirth.[14] Those who disagree with this view point out that the word σώζω throughout the other Pauline writings “denotes a salvific spiritual act, perhaps eschatological in consequence.”[15] Thus, though the passage could refer to the Imago Dei, such an interpretation does not account for the language of σώζω.

Some offer the view that women’s proper role within the church exists through childbirth. According to Raymond F. Collins, “Woman finds her place in God’s salvific economy not in teaching and public ministry but in her domestic role, rearing godly children.”[16] He further states that although the bearing of children is not necessary in order to obtain salvation, it “fits into the plan of salvation when it is accompanied by faith, love, holiness, and modesty.”[17] In other words, the woman’s salvation occurs in that she is fulfilling her God-given function to bear and raise children. She participates in the community of worship through the godly raising and nurturing of children.

It seems most likely that 1 Timothy 2:15 should be viwed in the context of the references of verses 13-14 to Adam and Eve, arguing that this passage refers to the protoevangelium of Genesis 3:15. After the fall of man, God made a promise to Adam and Eve that the woman’s seed would bruise Satan on the head (Gen. 3:15). According to this pronouncement, salvation will thus proceed from the woman. Although “the serpent had deceived her, her posterity would defeat him.”[18] Stott further states, “Women ‘will be saved through the birth of the Child,’ referring to Christ. By this rendering, ‘saved’ has a spiritual connotation, ‘through’ is the means by which salvation comes, and the definite article before ‘childbearing’ in the Greek sentence is explained.”[19] Indeed, this explanation seems to make the most sense. The promise of salvation which was made to Eve was then fulfilled by the birth of Christ. Christ provides the means of both salvation and sanctification, which accounts for the command to continue to persevere in the faith. (1 Tim. 2:15b).

Childbearing is a function that was created by God and is a wonderful thing. 1 Timothy 2:15 should not be viewed as a chauvinistic attempt to keep women barefoot and pregnant. Rather, this passage is pointing to the beauty and eternal significance of the Child, Christ, who was brought forth into this world by a woman. Without the birth of Christ, salvation would not be possible for anyone. In the larger scheme, not only women but all of mankind can be saved as a result of the ultimate sacrifice made by our Savior.








BIBLIOGRAPHY
Clark, Gordon H., The Pastoral Epistles. Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation, 1983.


Collins, Raymond F., I & II Timothy and Titus. London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.


Fairbairn, Patrick, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956.


Hendrikson, William, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957.
Holmes, J. M., Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices in 1 Timothy 2.9-15. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000.


Kroeger, Richard Clark, I Suffer Not a Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 in Light of Ancient Evidence. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.


Porter, Stanley E., “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 87-102.


Stott, John, Guard the Truth. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996.


[1] All Scripture citations are from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[2]Richard Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 172.
[3] J. M. Holmes, Text in a Whirlwind: A Critique of Four Exegetical Devices at 1 Timothy 2.9-15 (Sheffield: Shefield Academic Press Ltd), 262.
[4] Ibid., 262.
[5] Patrick Fairbairn, Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Grand rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1956), 131.
[6] Ibid., 131.
[7] Gordon H. Clark, The Pastoral Epistles (Jefferson: The Trinity Foundation), 50.
[8] Richard Clark Kroeger, I Suffer Not A Woman: Rethinking 1 Timothy 2:11-15 In Light of Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 127, 172).
[9] Ibid., 127.
[10] Stanley E. Porter, “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 101.
[11] Ibid., 102.
[12] William Hendrikson, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1957), 111.
[13] Ibid., 111.
[14] Ibid., 111.
[15] Stanley E. Porter, “What Does it Mean to be ‘Saved by Childbirth’ (1 Timothy 2.15)?”, Journal for the Study of the New Testament, no. 49 (1993): 101.
[16] Raymond F. Collins, I & II Timothy and Titus (London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002, 77.
[17] Ibid., 77.
[18] John Stott, Guard the Truth (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 87.
[19] Ibid., 87.