Written by David H. Linden |
Friday, November 19, 2021
Great reluctance exists in the PCA to embrace the simple truth that all of God’s people are being made holy in sexual desires, and that believing in this powerful grace is our duty. In this life, we have the covenanted hope of moving holiness in the direction of completion…To exclude such change in the category of sexual feelings is to say that Paul is wrong…“BUT our holiness has not been brought to completion!” I reply, “No one in the PCA says it has been or will be in this life.” We simply say with Paul that it is being completed. Bringing holiness to completion cannot mean that holiness is already complete. So let us stop reducing sanctification concerning sexual attraction to select persons, select sins, and a time later than the present.

One little text should settle the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) debate. When applied to Side B homosexuality, 2 Corinthians 7:1 speaks directly and with plainness. Here it is in 25 words:
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God. 
Advocates of the current error esteem abstinence from overt sexual sin, yet they accept its unchanging influence in the heart and soul of celibate homosexuals. Greg Johnson said in a recent SemperRef article, The Gay Threat to the PCA, that for 31 years he has daily turned from homoeroticism to Jesus. In he said further: “I believe in mortifying indwelling sin and in progressive sanctification.”  This makes many of us in the PCA ask what effect progressive sanctification has on unchanging indwelling sin.
We also have TE Johnson’s word on a YouTube interview that his homoerotic orientation has “not shifted a millimeter.” [1]  He testifies often that he has never fulfilled his same sex desires. Yet this sinful tendency, which he admits is sinful, has lived in his heart undiminished for decades. Greg tells us that God has not changed his same-sex attraction. But did not the Lord say, “… The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives” (Hebrews 12:6)? In other words, the Lord is active to develop his children into the image of Christ.
I write wondering how such claims can be made by a Christian role model with high office in the church when 2 Corinthians 7:1 speaks so directly of cleansing not only the body but also from defilement in our spirits. But let us begin where the text does.
Seeing we have these promises    This is a throwback to 2 Corinthians 6, where God promises to be our God, and declares that we are his people. In new covenant promises we are assured of the cleansing of our hearts, and of a soft heart in the place of the hard heart of an unregenerate person (Ezekiel 36; Jeremiah 31). Further, the Spirit writes his law on our hearts and produces real obedience to it in this life. When Paul said that we have these promises, he spoke of what supports a hefty transformation. We should believe these promises and expect this kind of change in persons who are called to be “ministers of a new covenant.” (2 Corinthians 3:6). Such change we must teach and exemplify.
Beloved    Paul expresses his love for the Corinthians in this epistle as vigorously as in any other letter, and here maybe even more so. In that church, and more precisely in that location, sexual sin was rampant. He speaks strongly of it in other writings, but in Corinth he battled it. And still he loved them – a vibrant evidence of his own transformed heart. Calling for their pursuit of holiness in 2 Corinthians 7:1 was just one more way that Paul loved them.
Let us cleanse ourselves    Usually, when sin is the topic, we think of the cleansing being done by the Lord. In regeneration he does the washing, as does the Word ever after.  Forgiveness is not a lonely gift; cleansing from all unrighteousness always accompanies confession in 1 John 1:9. Cleansing from every kind of sin is a wonderful promise. Our Confession rightly insists that sanctification is “throughout the whole man.” This includes our sexual nature and all our secret sins. We cannot really believe that there is the active work of the Spirit in our hearts if there is not a millimeter of progress, as in the case of Pastor Johnson. The Holy Spirit does better than that. Progressive sanctification has progress, or it is not progressing. Such an unbearable contradiction indicates either the Spirit’s failure – an impossible thing – or that salvation has not begun in that minister. Salvation absent would explain the absence of progress.
Paul calls on us to cleanse ourselves. His exhortation assumes realistic fear of the power of sin, and our need for confession and renouncing every form of our depravity. Sin snares; if we give it an inch, it will take a mile. So we, properly warned and authoritatively instructed, fight every dirty thought, every temptation, every source and opportunity of defilement, as we dutifully cleanse ourselves from it by resorting to the blood of our Savior. He can cleanse; he does; he will; and he will not mock us for our weakness. Through our Lord we find great grace at the throne with that name, because our great high priest has offered for us. We find not forgiveness alone, but grace to help even in our internal battles. This is just gospel, plain and simple. The cleansing is there, and we are to help ourselves to it by repentance, faith, and the means of grace.
Simply fighting our sins is not in itself terribly encouraging. Relishing the promises, works, and kindness of God comforts our hearts. The Lord said, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him” (John 14:23).  This is a cheerful word indeed. But we must not forget that bringing holiness forward requires cleansing our defilements, even though such cleansing will take a lifetime, and awaits the Lord’s appearance to complete it. It is an enormous inconsistency to have praise for partial cleansing, while leaving in place the defilement of unlawful sexual feelings, as if offset by good behavior. In spite of this discrepancy, some Side B apologists consider celibate gays to be outstanding models of Christian discipline – models, please note, which report no progress. Under such fiction, a veneer of no-sexual-follow-through has under it a core of corruption. Peter urged souls to be purified by obedience to the truth so that love can proceed earnestly from a pure heart (1 Peter 1:22).
From every defilement    I am saddened to read that the Missouri Presbytery has adopted a novel distortion of the sovereignty of God the Spirit. (See here and here.) In contrast, we have these promises and are assured that we may be cleansed, and we may cleanse ourselves, and we must. Such sanctification goes on in every believer every day in some way whether we see it or not. So it is with alarm that we discover that God supposedly has some inscrutable and undisclosed right to leave a child of his to wallow in sexual sin, as he may chose. We are told of a divine choice not to sanctify, a divine right exercised now and then concerning some (or many, or most?) who suffer from same-sex attractions.  That is a mockery of genuine sanctification, because it has God breaking covenant. (That presbytery needs to repent.) Our cleansing is supposed to be from every defilement, not just most of them. No minister should broadcast that he has no change in his spiritual growth away from sinful sexuality, and then have his presbytery defend that defilement as the Lord’s secret prerogative in his particular case. We do not believe is some oh so special sin. Let us never overturn 2 Corinthians 7:1 by slogans which present God as unresponsive, such as the Lord’s failure when some seek to “pray the gay away.” Such arguments shock the angels, none of whom ever had a sin forgiven. They must now marvel at the patience of God while some in the PCA neglect cleansing grace and cleansing duty as they churn up justifications for sins not being weakened.
Defilement of body and spirit    We encounter an intractable contradiction in the Side B homosexual position. Its supporters drive a wedge into salvation from sin by hailing holiness in external life, while sinful sexual desires sit in the inner man as unchanged as ever. This partitioning of a Christian’s life disparages the wonderful work of the Holy Spirit whose primary strategy is to change the heart. They downgrade God’s promise to produce Christ’s likeness in us. They decline relevant new covenant promises, which are the foundation for cleansing ourselves from every defilement of spirit. Instead they offer a lesser cleansing which overlooks sexual sin in the human spirit. External holiness is not real holiness. Reducing promises by limiting their application is just old fashioned unbelief. God does not know how to break a promise, and we cannot teach him. If the Son sets us free, we do become free indeed (John 8:36).
Satan whispers that cleansing in our spirits is not needed, that sexual desire is unchangeable, and that only in behavior can cleansing be expected. Further that relief from it is so rare, we may give up hope and let it go for this life. After all, it is only an attraction, and God will fix it later, not now. Such teaching in the PCA is disgraceful.
In this context, it is indefensible to describe ministers as faithful who have not found any cleansing from this defilement. When a minister has a lifelong sexual appetite for another male we are not supposed to question whether he is a holy man. This is theological baloney. When no progress within is even claimed, the debate is over, or it should be.
Sin in the heart will emerge; it is not so weak as to have no effect on us. All the sins in us will find expression, but our Savior died to deliver us from our evil “inclinations,” no matter how much a part of us they may be. Meanwhile many men, who tried so hard to be just good Side B gays, succumb and become the husband (or wife) of some male partner. Sexual sin in the pressure cooker of the heart will find a way to get loose. 2Corinthians 7 teaches cleansing must reach into the inner man.
Bringing holiness to completion    Our view of the Christian life is so out of whack these days that if you say to some that personal cleansing of ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit is part and parcel of bringing holiness to completion now – they will wonder what you have been drinking. Words like perfectionism, the error of Wesley, and triumphalism will erupt. You will be told that you fail to account for remaining sin, and that your doctrine of sanctification is over-realized. Sentences like “cleanses us from all unrighteousness,” though resisted, will not be objected to when recognized as Scripture. What causes heartburn is the idea that every believer is being strengthened to some degree, and every sin is being weakened to some degree. Arguing for this essential element of reformed doctrine irritates the enablers of homosexuality in the pulpit.
Great reluctance exists in the PCA to embrace the simple truth that all of God’s people are being made holy in sexual desires, and that believing in this powerful grace is our duty. In this life, we have the covenanted hope of moving holiness in the direction of completion. This is just good Westminster and Biblical thinking. To exclude such change in the category of sexual feelings is to say that Paul is wrong. At this point fervent objection may rise, such as: “BUT our holiness has not been brought to completion!” I reply, “No one in the PCA says it has been or will be in this life.” We simply say with Paul that it is being completed. Bringing holiness to completion cannot mean that holiness is already complete. So let us stop reducing sanctification concerning sexual attraction to select persons, select sins, and a time later than the present. The same man who wrote 2 Corinthians 7:1 wrote, “Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thessalonians 5:23). That is not triumphalism; it is just Paul on the extent of our salvation.
In the fear of God    We should fear that a publicly proclaimed testimony of unmitigated sin (as in not “a millimeter” of improvement) contradicts salvation itself. The Lord warns, “If I do not wash you, you have no share with me” (John 13:8). (Greg, you should pay attention to that verse.) To some he will say one day, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of iniquity.” God will not be mocked by anyone boasting of no change in any sin and getting away with it. We have a deficient fear of God. In our day, our majestic God has become a lightweight in our minds. But the Lord who made heaven and earth says, “… This is the one to whom I will look: he who is humble and contrite in spirit and trembles at my word” (Isaiah 66:2). In the fear of our holy God, let us be about cleansing from all of our defilements. The verse is short but says much. Here again are these 25 words from the Lord: “Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.”
David Linden is a retired Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America; he lives in Delaware.
[1] Rev. Johnson often speaks of a shift to heterosexual desires, and he can claim that in his case that that has not occurred. My point is that the desires he would change from are sinful desires and are current according to his own confession of a homoerotic inclination. It is not a sin when a man is not attracted to a women. It is evil for a man to be sexually attracted to another man.

Some people believe and teach that a father has the “final say” about the marriage of his daughter and is not accountable to anyone for his decision. But this seems to be an indefensible claim since such a position is lacking clear biblical support. While it might be said that a father’s role and responsibility are indispensable and that his word ought to carry significant weight in the decision-making process, it is not entirely clear from Scripture that he has an unappealable authority. The concept of an absolute veto power is nowhere to be found.

God-ordained authority is necessarily limited by two factors: (1) The revealed will of God in Scripture, and (2) The jurisdictional boundaries of the office in view. This means: (1) If the command or prohibition issued by an authority transgresses the Word of God, it must be disobeyed, and (2) If the command or prohibition issued lies outside the proper jurisdiction of the office in view, it may be disobeyed. These principles hold true for each of the three God-ordained governments of Family, Church, and State, and therefore to the offices of father, pastor, and magistrate alike.
What follows is but a brief study of the extent and limitation of the authority of fathers with regard to the marriage of their daughters, in particular. The goal is to identify the boundaries of parental jurisdiction when it comes to the question of whether they marry this man, that man, or no man at all. As a primary rule, we will consult the Scriptures and, whenever possible, rely upon the wisdom, insight, and experience of our Protestant forefathers.
Criteria for Lawful Marriage
Seeing that Marriage is a creation ordinance (Gen. 2:18, 24), a particular marriage cannot be automatically judged invalid or unlawful simply because the persons to be married are not Christians. However, because in general Scripture indicates that it is necessary for a man to “provide” for his wife and household (1 Tim. 5:8; Matt. 7:9), we must conclude that any man who is not in a position to fulfill this duty is ineligible for marriage. Yet when one of the persons to be married is a Christian, a new criterion arises: the other must be a Christian also. Scripture makes this rule explicit when it says: “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers” (2 Cor. 6:14), and confirms it when it says, in the case of a widow: “If her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).
Since the Scriptures are clear about what constitutes a lawful marriage, we should, first of all, conclude that it cannot be within the jurisdiction of any man to either: (1) Prohibit a lawful marriage, or (2) Consent to an unlawful marriage. This is stated in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q. 139), where it says that the sins forbidden in the 7th Commandment include: “the prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful marriages.”
The Westminster Directory for the Publick Worship of God says that without “a just cause” parents are bound to give their consent to the marriage of their children: “Parents ought not to force their children to marry without their free consent, nor deny their own consent without just cause.” To see what the Divines may have had in mind by the phrase “just cause” we can look to the Westminster Confession (24.3):
It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And, therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.
According to the Confession, it is a just cause to withhold one’s consent to any marriage that would join the “godly” to the “wicked.” This is not a prohibition against joining two Christians who are at different places in the progress of their sanctification, as can be seen by the prooftexts the Divines used to support this article. In every case, the text describes the union between those who belong to the true religion and those who do not.
Genesis 34:14, “And they said to them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one who is uncircumcised, for that would be a reproach to us.”
Exodus 34:12-16, “Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images, for you shall worship no other god; for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they play the harlot with their gods and make sacrifice to their gods, and one of them invites you and you eat of his sacrifice, and you take of his daughters for your sons, and his daughters play the harlot with their gods and make your sons play the harlot with their gods.”
2 Corinthians 6:14-15, “Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with unrighteousness? And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?”
Deuteronomy 7:3-4, “Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son. For they will turn your sons away from following me, to serve other gods; so the anger of the LORD will be aroused against you and destroy you suddenly.”
1 Kings 11:4, “For it was so, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned his heart after other gods; and his heart was not loyal to the LORD his God, as was the heart of his father David.”
Nehemiah 13:25-27, “So I contended with them and cursed them, struck some of them and pulled out their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, You shall not give your daughters as wives to their sons, nor take their daughters for your sons or yourselves. Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? Yet among many nations there was no king like him, who was beloved of his God; and God made him king over all Israel. Nevertheless, pagan women caused even him to sin. Should we then hear of your doing all this great evil, transgressing against our God by marrying pagan women?”
Malachi 2:11, “Judah has dealt treacherously, and an abomination has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem, for Judah has profaned the LORD’s holy institution which He loves: He has married the daughter of a foreign god.”
Again, the Divines are not under the impression that the Bible prohibits marriage between one Christian and another, even if they enjoy different levels of sanctification. The most we can gather from their teaching is that a father should not give his daughter to a man who is either an unbeliever or is so “notoriously wicked” that any profession of faith he might make must be called into question. Such a man is not eligible to marry a Christian woman, and vice versa.
Extent of Parental Authority
Some people believe and teach that a father has the “final say” about the marriage of his daughter and is not accountable to anyone for his decision. But this seems to be an indefensible claim since such a position is lacking clear biblical support. While it might be said that a father’s role and responsibility are indispensable and that his word ought to carry significant weight in the decision-making process, it is not entirely clear from Scripture that he has an unappealable authority. The concept of an absolute veto power is nowhere to be found.
The most common passage that is used to support such an idea is found in Numbers 30, where it says that a father has the power to cancel his daughter’s vow if he does not approve of her decision. It is rarely acknowledged, however, that there are two points of criteria the daughter must meet in order for this passage to apply: she must be “in her father’s house” (v. 3b) and must be “in her youth” (v. 3c). Though Moses does not identify the age range for what constitutes a person’s youth, it was commonly understood among the Rabbis to begin at age twelve or thirteen. Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown write: “According to Jewish writers… the age at which young people were deemed capable of vowing was thirteen for boys and twelve for girls.”
However, the question that needs to be answered is: When (if ever) does the time of a person’s youth expire? Are we to assume that a woman continues in a state of perpetual childhood so long as she remains unmarried? According to John Calvin, she does not. In his comments on 1 Corinthians 7:36, where Paul tellingly refers to a woman who is “past the flower of her youth,” Calvin indicates that the Christian theologians of his time had no such concept of “perpetual childhood.” Instead, they taught that this stage of a person’s life expires at the age of twenty. He writes: “By this clause, the flower of her youth, he means the marriageable age; this, lawyers define to be from twelve to twenty years old.” With this qualification in mind, we might argue that the law of Numbers 30 has real but limited application to the question at hand. The vow of a young woman who is (1) still in her father’s house, and (2) still in the stage of her youth, that is, anywhere between twelve and twenty years old, can still be overruled by her father.
In any case, it can be admitted that the passage itself speaks in broad generalities. But it should be emphasized that basing a doctrine or practice on the generality of a single text is unwise. Generalities are not always universal, and certainly not absolute. Thus before we decide on the application of a general rule to a particular situation, we must be sure that we: (1) have not overlooked relevant, restricting details in the rule itself (e.g., the phrase “in her youth”), and (2) will not undermine the details of further revelation on the same subject. This brings us to the point that must be reckoned with—namely: Other passages of Scripture speak to the matter of parental consent, and they do not use or presuppose such an application of Numbers 30. One of those passages is found in 1 Corinthians 7.
Apostolic Criteria for Withholding Marriage
In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul gives instructions to fathers about giving their daughters in marriage. What seems obvious is that if Numbers 30 serves as a “blank check,” so to speak, granting fathers full and final authority in this matter, the instructions Paul provides in this chapter are out of place. All he would need to say is that, according to God’s law the marriage of any young woman depends on the will of her father. But Paul doesn’t say that. Instead, he ends up saying things that make such an application of Numbers 30 even more untenable than it already is.
There are two things about Paul’s instruction in 1 Corinthians 7 that deserve our attention. The first is the context. As we read the passage, we get the sense that, apart from rare cases of having the special gift of continency (v. 7), the only reason Paul was encouraging any individual to entertain the possibility of not pursuing a lawful marriage is that the world was in a state of upheaval and instability at that time. He writes: “Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord, yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. I suppose therefore that this is good—because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless, such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you. But this I say, brethren, the time is short” (vv. 26-29).
Most commentators believe Paul’s reference to the present distress, the trouble in the flesh, and the fact that the time was short was about the impending Jewish-Roman war. Because he knew that war, pestilence, and famine would soon fill the land (cf. 1 Cor. 10:11), he thought it was wiser for those who were unmarried to remain in a single state. As Jesus predicted in Matthew 24:19, 21: “Woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be.” In any case, one should notice that, even during such a tumultuous time as this, Paul put clear limitations on his advice. He recognized that because there was no divine law that prohibited a virgin from marrying in such a situation, the decision was not his to make. Paul says: “I have no command from the Lord.”
The other thing we should notice is more directly related to the question of a father’s consent. We read in verses 36-38: “If any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and need so require, let him do what he wills, he does not sin: let them marry. Nevertheless, he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power of his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.”
In this passage, Paul is speaking to the fathers who were worried they might be sinning against their daughters by keeping them from marriage. Clearly, they were inclined to take Paul’s advice, even though he admitted that his own preference was not the final word. A father would naturally want to know: How can I know for sure that I am not sinning against my daughter? So to comfort the fathers in this predicament, Paul assures them they would not be sinning so long as a few important points of criteria were met.
Again—it may be helpful here to remember that none of these criteria has to do with the particular man that a young woman had in view. So long as she desired to marry a believer (1 Cor. 6:14), and so long as he was in a position to provide for her needs (1 Tim. 5:8; Matt. 7:9), her desire was lawful in the eyes of God. This discussion is about a unique and temporary situation that would soon bring untold hardship to the whole of their society. That particular hardship, viz., “the present distress,” would make a new marriage and a young family extremely difficult to sustain. It was this consideration only that allowed for the possibility that a father might keep his daughter from pursuing a lawful marriage. I repeat this here so that I might exhort the reader: Let us not so quickly attempt to press this text into the service of our own situation. That would be to stretch the word beyond the scope of its intended application.
That said, Paul provides fathers with two things they need to know:

First, a father is not sinning by withholding his daughter from marriage only if he has power of his own will.

What does it mean for a person to have “power of his own will?” Simply put, it means that no one else’s will is opposing his decision. In this case, the reference is to the will of his daughter who desires to be married. The implication is arresting. Paul believes that even during the present distress, a father would be sinning if he simply, and on the basis of his own authority, overpowered his daughter’s will. So long as the marriage in view was lawful in the eyes of God, the father is expected to give his blessing to the marriage.
Poole confirms this when he explains that a father having “power of his own will” (v. 37) means that “his will is not contradicted by his daughter’s fondness of a married life; for in such a case the father, though he would not willingly dispose of his daughter in marriage, yet he ought to be overruled by the will of the daughter.” He then says: “For though the parent hath a great power over his child, and ought to consent to the marriage of his child, yet he hath no power as to wholly hinder them from marriage.”
This is not the only place where Poole speaks to this issue. In his comments on Jeremiah 35:19 he raises the question about parental consent and asks whether parents have the final say in the marriage of their children. He argues that they do not. For Poole, marriage is a “natural liberty” that belongs to the individual by virtue of his or her creation. In other words, marriage is a creation ordinance that precedes the authority of the family. It is not a privilege that originates with the family, and therefore it cannot be taken away by the family apart from clear direction of the Creator. God alone has given this gift to mankind, and he alone has the right to determine its lawful and unlawful uses. As long as individuals are pursuing that which is lawful according to the word of God, fathers are expected to give these individuals their blessing and support. Poole writes:
This brings in another question: Whether parents have a power to oblige their children in matters which God hath left at liberty. Unquestionably, parents do not have a power to determine children in all things as to which God hath left them at liberty, for then they have a power to make their children slaves and to take away all their natural liberty. To marry or not, and to this or that person, is a matter of liberty. Therefore, parents cannot in this case determine their children. Parents being set over children, and instead of God to them, as it is their duty to advise their children to the best of their ability for their good; so it is the duty of children to receive their advice, and not to depart from it, unless they see circumstances so mistaken by their parents, or so altered by the providence of God, that they can reasonably conclude that, had their parents known or foreseen it, they would not have so advised. But that parents have an absolute power to determine children in all things as to which God hath not forbidden them, and that children by the law of God are obliged to an obedience to all such commands, even when they may see that their parents are mistaken, or that God by his providence has altered circumstances, I see no reason to conclude.

Second, a father is not sinning by withholding his daughter from marriage only if there is no necessity that requires it.

There is an interesting phrase in verse 37 that describes a situation where there is no “necessity” for marriage. It would seem that this implies the opposite—namely, that sometimes there is a necessity for marriage. The question becomes: What might that necessity be?
Some commentators think this is the father’s necessity, referring to his need to give his daughter away to alleviate the financial burden connected with her care. Others say the necessity belongs to the daughter and refers to the limited time of her child-bearing capacity. While the second explanation has a bit more support than the first, viz., the phrase “needs so require” appears next to the statement about her“passing of the flower of her youth,” there is a third explanation that seems preferable: The necessity Paul is talking about belongs to the whole situation: First, to the daughter because of her need for intimate relations, and then to the father because of his responsibility to protect his daughter from the sin of fornication. Concerning the phrase, “needs so require,” Calvin writes: “In this clause, I understand him as referring to the girl’s infirmity—in the event of her not having the gift of continency; for in that case, necessity constrains her to marry.”
This interpretation has the benefit of keeping one of the major themes of the context in view. In this reading, Paul is reminding us that every individual person has a different measure of resistibility when it comes to sexual temptation. His warning to the father, then, is that he needs to consider whether his daughter has a propensity to run incautiously into relationships with the opposite sex. If she does, then according to Paul, marriage is a necessity.
Again, this is a theme that pervades the previous context, and Paul addresses it with great boldness and pastoral wisdom. In verses 8-9, he speaks to unmarried individuals about their desire for sexual intimacy: “I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” The same instruction was given in the opening section (vv 1-3). To ensure that those with an unmanageable desire for such relations were provided for—and to ensure that those who were weak would avoid sin—Paul prescribes marriage. From his perspective, marriage is the best way to prevent a needy individual from engaging in sexual immorality: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (v. 1).
What are the implications here? One implication is that every father has to face the real possibility that by pulling his daughter back from marriage he might end up sling-shooting her right into an unlawful relationship. Like the snapping of a rubber band, he can end up causing her to shoot forward and fall headlong into sin. So this requires a man to know his daughter extremely well. He needs to ask himself: Does my daughter have a propensity in this direction? Does she demonstrate a lack of self-control in this area? Paul says that he has to consider all of these things before he can conclude—even in view of her outward submission to his will—that he is doing the right thing. “For if power be wanting on the part of the daughter,” writes Calvin, “the father acts an exceedingly bad part by endeavoring to keep her back from marriage, and would be no longer a father to her, but a cruel tyrant.”
Poole takes the same approach. In his comments on verse 36, he argues that the necessity for marriage arises from a situation where the father “sees reason to fear that, if he does not give her in marriage, she will so dispose of herself without asking her father’s advice, or be exposed, possibly, to worse temptations.” Then, picking up on Paul’s remedy for this situation, which is to simply “Let them marry,” he says:
The apostle, in his former discourse, had nowhere condemned a married estate during the present distress, as being sinful or unlawful, but only as inexpedient, or not so expedient as a single life during the present distress. He had before determined in verse 9 that it was “better to marry than to burn.” Therefore, no inexpediency of a thing can balance what is plainly sinful. If therefore the case be such that a man or woman must marry, or sin, though marriage brings with it more care and trouble, yet it is to be preferred before plain sinning.
From all this, it becomes clear that there are several determining factors in the marriage of a young woman and they cannot be reduced to a single thing. There are many considerations and each has its own place. While the element of parental consent is a blessing and certainly ideal, it is not left to parents to act according to their own preferences. Even fathers have limited authority over the decisions of their daughters, and according to Scripture, one of those decisions is about whether they marry this man, that man, or no man at all. As we’ve seen, this is especially true in situations where the young woman either “cannot exercise self-control” (1 Cor. 7:9) or is “passing the flower of her age” (v. 36) and strongly desires to marry. When a young Christian woman wants to marry another Christian man, and that man is qualified in every biblical way, there is no argument her father can put forth against it that carries the force of the law. It may have the ring of wisdom, but not the force of law.
Martin Luther sums it up well when he writes:
It is quite certain therefore that parental authority is strictly limited; it does not extend to the point where it should wreak damage and destruction to the child, especially to its soul. If then a father forces his child into a marriage without love, he oversteps and exceeds his authority. He ceases to be a father and becomes a tyrant who uses his authority not for building up—which is why God gave it to him—but for destroying. He is taking authority into his own hands without God, indeed, against God. The same principle holds good when a father hinders his child’s marriage, or lets the child go ahead on his own, without any intention of helping him in the matter. In such a case the child is truly free and may act as if his parent or guardian were dead; mindful of what is best for himself, he may become engaged in God’s name, and look after himself as best he can.1
In one of his letters of spiritual counsel, Luther writes to a man who was refusing to give his blessing to his daughter. But because he could see no biblical basis for denying the lawfulness of the marriage, he set out to correct the man, even threatening him with the power of his pastoral office. In his mind, the family is not a sovereign, independent government, but is ever coexisting with other God-ordained governments (the state and the church), and that for its own good. In God’s wisdom, he knows that the family needs accountability. Moreover, this implies that the individual members of each government have the right to appeal to the officers of the other two when they believe they are being treated unjustly. Equally important—it is always the responsibility of the officers of any government to hear concerns and complaints that are being brought to their attention. As officers under Christ, it is their duty to intercede and act with a righteous use of their own power if necessary. Luther writes:
As I have written before, children should not become engaged without parental consent. But at the same time, I also wrote that parents should not and cannot rightly compel or prevent their children to please themselves. In short, I pray you not to delay your consent any longer. Let the good fellow have peace of mind. And I cannot wait much longer. I shall have to act as my office requires.2  
Paul Liberati is the Senior Pastor of Church of the King in Sacramento, Calif. This article is used with permission.

Martin Luther, That Parents Should Neither Compel Nor Hinder the Marriage of Their Children, And That Children Should Not Become Engaged Without Their Parents’ Consent (1524)
Martin Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel—Letter dated June 4, 1539

This idea of governmental intervention deserves a fuller treatment than I can give here. For now, I will leave the reader with a few resources for further consideration:
On page 73 of The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin, Philip Edgecombe Hughes writes: 
In the case of children who marry without the consent of father or mother at the age when they are permitted to do so (stated as being ages 20 for a man and 18 for a woman on the previous page), as above, if it is known to the court that they have acted lawfully while their fathers have been negligent or excessively strict, the fathers shall be compelled to assign them a dowry or to grant them such a portion and position as would have been the case had they consented to the marriage.
On pages 366-367 of his History of the Church of Scotland (1655), John Spottiswood writes:
Public inhibitions should be made, that no persons under the power and obedience of fathers, tutors, and curators, either men or women, contract marriage privately, and without the knowledge of those to whom they live subject, under the power of church censure; for if any son or daughter be moved towards a match, they are obliged to ask the counsel and assistance of their parents for performing the same. And though the father, notwithstanding their desires, has no other cause than the common sort men have, to wit, lack of money, or because they are not perhaps of a lineage and birth as they require; yet must not the parties make any covenant till the ministry or civil magistrate be acquainted therewith, and interpone their request for the parent’s consent; which if they cannot obtain, finding no just cause why their marriage ought not to proceed, in that case, they, sustaining the place of the parent, may consent to the parties, and admit them to marry, for the work of God ought not to be hindered by the corrupt affections of worldly men. 
Related Posts:

I find it very moving to see how Newton never gave up on Cowper spiritually but encircled his friend’s mental illness within a larger faith perspective. It was like he held on for him. In 1780, Newton wrote from London to his friend, “How strange that your judgement should be so clouded in one point only, and that a point so obvious and strikingly clear to everybody who knows you!” He wasn’t about to share in Cowper’s spiritual despair. No, he added, “Though your comforts have been so long suspended, I know not that I ever saw you for a single day since your calamity came upon you, in which I could not perceive a s clear and satisfactory evidence, that the grace of God was with you, as I could in your brighter and happier times.”

Just over 250 years have passed since John Newton wrote “Amazing Grace” and introduced it for his congregation for New Year’s Day 1773. He had been a pastor in the quiet market town of Olney for almost a decade, but his earlier life had been anything but quiet.
He had passed through many dangers, toils, and snares: reckless decisions and a reckless love affair; trauma and kidnapping; near shipwreck, near starvation, and near-death illness; enslaved and then a slave trader. But by the end, he was a transformed man. He became a wise spiritual counselor, a powerful preacher, a popular hymn-writer, and in due course a courageous abolitionist. When his autobiography was published, shortly after he was ordained, the people of the town used to stare at him when they saw him in the street. Amazing grace, indeed.
Of the many surprising stories behind the song, one of the most poignant concerns Newton’s friendship with the troubled poet William Cowper. The day the congregation sang “Amazing Grace” was Cowper’s last day in church.
Golden Years of Friendship
William Cowper had suffered great mental anguish and had even been suicidal ten years earlier. At an asylum just outside London, he recovered, by the grace of God, right around the time when Newton arrived at Olney as a pastor. The two met three years later and became fast friends.
Indeed, Newton invited Cowper to move to Olney, and for about twelve years they were pretty much neighbors, with just a small orchard between the vicarage and Cowper’s home on the market square. Cowper had been living in Cambridgeshire with the widow Mary Unwin and her household, and they all moved together into the home they called “Orchardside,” pleased to think they would be in a place where the gospel was preached and loved.
Cowper and Newton had much in common. Both men had lost their mothers when only six years old, both had suffered abuse at boarding school, and both were “men of letters” with literary interests. But most of all, they were both serious about their faith in Christ.
For six years, their friendship grew. Newton, about six years older, encouraged the bashful Cowper to share in the work of pastoral care, prayer meetings, and hymn-writing. These were the golden years of their friendship. Newton admired his friend’s poetic gifts, and one or the other wrote hymns each week for the parish services. Olney knew something of a local revival. When a new building was opened for prayer meetings, Cowper wrote with a real sense of God’s presence,
Jesus, where’er thy people meet,There they behold thy mercy-seat;Where’er they seek thee thou art found,And ev’ry place is hallow’d ground.
There were hints, though, that Cowper still struggled with soul distress from time to time. When Mrs. Unwin, like a mother to him, was seriously ill, he wrote with some melancholy of an “aching void” in his spirit, compared to just after his conversion:
What peaceful hours I then enjoy’d,How sweet their Mem’ry still!But they have left an Aching VoidThe World can never fill.
Still, remarkably, he could turn this spiritual melancholy into an exemplary hymn of prayer for a closer walk with God. This was a prayer for all of us.
A Chasm Opens
Writing this way would become more difficult later. In 1771, he felt a profound disquiet and told Newton, “My Soul is among Lions.” A year later, Newton observed, “Cowper is in the depths as much as ever.” But truth be told, none of these troubles predicted what would happen on the second day of January 1773. This was altogether unexpected.
The day after “Amazing Grace” was sung in church, Newton was called urgently to Orchardside. Cowper had collapsed back into a dark depression and was suicidal. It was a complete breakdown.
Read More
Related Posts: