Do you know of famous single Christians?

Hi

I specifically want to know if they lived with others. I think CS Lewis, Corrie Ten Boom lived in community. And Mother Theresa. I know many Catholic saints would fall into this category - I am looking for more Protestants. If you could give me some supporting evidence (where you learned it) that would be great too.

Thanks

Winifred

Hi winifred,
Lilias trotter, Amy Carmichael, Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Basilea Schlink, Gladys Aylward, Helen Roseveare, Mary Slessor,
Alot of women hymn writers remained single as well...

I'm sure there are quite a few brothers out there as well..

Hello Winifred,

StarofG0D beat me to all the ones I would have given. :)

Among the men, David Brainerd is the first name that comes to mind. He died at the age of 29, which is quite young but nevertheless counts as him being single, especially considering that people in the 16th century usually married at the onset of adulthood. If you are interested, you can read his personal diary here:

http://www.jesus.org.uk/vault/library/brainerd_diary.pdf

I was greatly blessed by it.

I noticed that no references were given for the names earlier mentioned. However, a quick Google search should bring biographies. Enjoy your research!

Sadhu Sundar Singh

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/singh
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/Sadhu-Sundar-Singh.html
http://www.calvarycomics.com/comics/sadhu/index.html

David Brainard
Robbert Murray MacChenne

I would point out that Mother Theresa was NOT actually a Christian, she was just a Catholic believing on her good works rather than on Christ alone for her salvation. The term "Christian" is very misused.

Jackie Pullinger comes to mind.

Jackie Pullinger actually married later in life...

If you go to this website, winifred, you can find some information about those women mentioned earlier.

www.womenofchristianity.com

Winifred wrote:
I specifically want to know if they lived with others. I think CS Lewis, Corrie Ten Boom lived in community. And Mother Theresa.

I am single and I have thought about this quite a lot especially for my older widowed friends. I would love to be able to afford a huge house and we all live together and pool our support for the bills and for one another in prayer and Bible study! I think that would be a great gift from God!

I'm sorry if that's not what you were asking about.

God bless you,
Lisa

Most theologians agree he was unmarried during his ministry, however there are indications that he was married previously. Speculation by many theologians is that he may have been a widower.

I was going to say...
There is also speculation that Mary Magdalene married Jesus Himself!!

Oh my..
1Ti_1:4 Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.

Brother Paul, I think the reason that people theorize that he may have been married at one point has to do with the rules of being part of the Sanhedrin. I have heard people say, though I have yet to read this in documented form, so I am not liking repeating it, that in order to possess the position he did, he would have had to be married.

I think I was very near to rebuking you Krispy.

Please forgive me!
Blessings to you

I think the reason that people theorize that he may have been married at one point has to do with the rules of being part of the Sanhedrin.

Anyhow, interesting stuff. I guess anything can be contested these days, especially if it challenges sacrosanct conviction.

The Apostle Paul never missed a chance to use real life events that he had as object lessons. It is hard to believe that he never referred to one of the most important times in his life (married to a woman, death of a wife), in any of his writings. Such is the life of a Theologian. I too wonder how the Theologians extrapolate that understanding.

Pilgrim

I would rather be well-known to God than famous to men.

"Anyhow, interesting stuff. I guess anything can be contested these days, especially if it challenges sacrosanct conviction"

...which is why I did not really want to repeat it, but I guess sometimes it is good to understand why people say things, and that there is a "Method to the Madness," as it were.

At the very best this can only go into the "Speculations that will not make it very far" pile. The Holy Spirit did not see fit to comment or give us full profiles of the Apostles and their personal lives.

Yes, Paul was not married during his entire ministry of preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, Before his ministry to gospel of Jesus Christ, Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, and to be a member of the Sanhedrin, one is required to be married. I seriously doubt the Sanhedrin made an exception for Paul.

All the other Apostles were married. Jesus brothers were married, and most likely so was His sisters. Jesus never married, but He does have plans for marriage, and it involves us. He is the groom, we are the bride.

I see no added virtue that unmarried Christians have over married Christians. If any Christians choose not to marry, I wish them the well with their choice, but I do not see it as being more superior life choice than being Married, and with Children.

The other 12 Apostles were all married. Are they less Christian or lesser Apostles than Paul.

Jesus siblings, His brothers, and presumably Jesus sisters, born to Joseph and Mary, married.

In 1 Corinthians. Paul's first letter, Paul believed that the Great tribulation was imminent.

Paul's advice to not marry was predicated on the fact: that since the great tribulation was at hand, it would be very painful to see one's children and spouses suffer with a cruel death under the anti-Christ. And Paul made it clear that this was not from God, but his own opionion and concern.

Apparently, his 'time table' was off, as can be seen by the fact that the Great tribulation has not yet come. And it does seem that it may be very near, and may very well happen in our time. It sure looks like that way to me.

Hmmm...Jimmy, I thought you were going to mention yourself! :-)

QUOTE
______________________________________________________________
I see. Thanks! I wonder if he actually was a member of the Sanhedrin, or if being a married was even a requirement to be a part of this group. Apparently, if you trust the differing "factoids" on the internet, these things are inconclusive as well. It's amazing what an ignoramus such as myself can conjure up through Google.
______________________________________________________________

Paul, I heard this taught back in the mid 60s at Bible School, long before the internet.

Besides the reasons given here, some would suggest that since he writes about marriage as he does, it appears to have been penned by one intimately acquainted with marriage.

Some early writers, like Eusebius, infer that Paul was a married man but then in 1Cor.7:7,8 many believe he is saying he is single.

But does it really matter? Doesn't to me.

Ginnyrose wrote:

"Some early writers, like Eusebius, infer that Paul was a married man but then in 1Cor.7:7,8 many believe he is saying he is single.

But does it really matter? Doesn't to me."

I agree, it does not matter if Paul was married or unmarried, Paul was appointed an Apostle as chosen directly by our Lord Jesus.

I've heard this said before, but Scripture does not explicitly affirm that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin.

Personally I think Paul's affirming the benefits of singlehood in 1 Corinthians 7 makes more sense if he had never married.

Yuehan wrote "I've heard this said before, but Scripture does not explicitly affirm that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin."

Scripture does confirm that Paul is a member of the Sanhedrin.

The Sanhedrin consisted of 71 judges. God thus commanded Moses, "Gather to Me 70 men of the elders of Israel... and bring them to the Tent of Meeting, so that they should stand there with you" (Numbers 11:16). This was the first Sanhedrin. Counting Moses himself, it consisted of 71 members. Since the membership of the Sanhedrin is fixed by the Torah, its number cannot be changed.

At the stoning of Stephen (Acts 7) , it was the Sanhedrin where Stephen presented his defense. Only members and the accused were present. When the decision was made to execute Stephen, Acts states that Saul (Paul) gave his approval of the execution. That was the act of an official member of the Sanhedrin. That is the reason Paul is believed to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

As for the requirement of having a wife, The Torah required all members of the Sanhedrin must be without any genetic defect including their genitals, thus it became traditional that members be married, and preferrably with a child. The Jews did not take any chances in failing the letter of the Law, they made sure they followed God's instructions in this matter very accurately.

If Paul was married, what became of his wife?

Paul may have answered this in 1 Corinthians 7 12-16

12 "To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband.Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?"

Paul's wife, if he truly had a wife, had the right to remain Jewish, and therefore separate from him to remain in her Jewish heritage and family. Paul was an ardent enforcer of the Jewish religion condemning Jewish Christians to death for Heresy. Suddenly, Paul meets Jesus on the road to Damascus, and he abruptly becomes a Christian far from home. It would not be unreasonable that she may have decided to seperate from Paul.

1) Paul never claimed to be a part of the Sanhedrin. Had he been part of it, he surely would've claimed such in passages like Philippians 3.

2) In Acts 7:58, Saul of Tarsus is described as a "young man" who merely held the coats of the people who stoned Stephen. Young men would not have qualified as one of the seventy elders of Israel. These were roles for older distinguished members of Israel's elders. And as it is, this court was largely comprised of the Sadducee party. There were very few Pharisees on the council. And it is hard to imagine somebody on the council checking coats at the door.

3) Paul acted more like somebody who worked for the court than somebody who was a part of the court. In Acts 9:1-2, he had to obtain permission from the high priest to go and terrorize Christians outside of Jerusalem. It's hard to imagine somebody who has a judicial role in the Jewish government going out to make arrests. They would have been too busy.

4) Paul's marital status is entirely unknown in Scripture. Anybody claiming to know that in fact he was married presumes that Paul was a rabbi or of something of greater religious significance in Israel. Such assumptions however, are just that. They are assumptions that Paul never claims for himself, and are without one iota of Scriptural support. While I personally favor the idea that he was probably married at some point in his life, that is something that cannot in fact be gleaned from the Scriptures themselves.

5) Stephen's stoning was not an official act of the Sanhedrin. It was done by a violent mob, without any official decision being made. Historically, under Roman occupation, the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute people. Which is why they had to hand Christ over to Rome in order to execute him. Had the Sanhedrin officially executed Stephen, they would have come under the wrath of the Romans.

KingJimmy,

Your 1st point is invalid. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But the fact that he voted strongly implies he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Only members can vote.

Your Point 2. Paul's remembrance of the death of Steven has Paul actively and willingly supporting the death of Stephen. Paul in his letters accepted responsibility for Stephens death. Why? because the vote by the Sanhedrin must be unanimous. Paul voted. The Sanhedrin is the only Judicial branch for the enforcement of the Mosaic laws. Paul had to be a member of the Sanhedrin.

Point 3. Again, Paul was very zealous for the Mosaic Law, and Paul fully understood that the New Covenant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ was not Compatible with the Mosaic Covenant. He was willing to leave Jerusalem in order to exterminate Christianity, which was wooing Jews away from the Mosaic Covenant. A Covenant that God annihilated upon the death of Jesus.

Point 4. On this I agree. And I pointed that out in my above posting.

Point 5. They voted on it. Paul voted too. Since when do angry mobs of Jews take the Law in their hands to caste judgement of death, apart from a vote from the Sanhedrin.

And since when do angry mobs stop to take a vote??? :)

My best wishes to you, brother Jimmy. It is a good thing that we are not saved only because our knowledge of every thing biblical is perfect, but by the shed blood of Jesus Christ shed on the cross, our Paschal Lamb, for all time.

May God continue to richly bless you in all things, KingJimmy.

Sincerely,

ArtB