Truth Unites - Clerical Celibacy: A Protestant Critique

Episode Date: July 15, 2024

Gavin Ortlund offers a Protestant critique of clerical celibacy, as practiced in Roman Catholicism and to a lesser degree in other traditions. Mark Vroegop's Waiting is Not a Waste: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1433590972 Pre-order Ortlund's book on Protestantism: https://www.zondervan.com/p/what-it-means-to-be-protestant/ Truth Unites exists to promote gospel assurance through theological depth. Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) is President of Truth Unites and Theologian-in-Residence at Immanuel Nashville. SUPPORT: Tax Deductible Support: https://truthunites.org/donate/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/truthunites FOLLOW: Twitter: https://twitter.com/gavinortlund Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TruthUnitesPage/ Website: https://truthunites.org/

In this video, I want to articulate a Protestant argument against mandatory clerical celibacy that is the requirement for clergy or those holding an ordained office in the church to refrain from marriage and practice lifelong chastity. This critique primarily has in mind Roman Catholic practice, but it will touch on other traditions a bit. Many of the Eastern traditions like Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian Church of the East, it's the custom of bishops to be celibate. though there's been exceptions to that. But the lower offices like priests can get married, at least if they're married prior to getting ordained. And again, if you get back in history, you'll find lots of little nuances and wrinkles and so forth. In the Roman Catholic Church,

clerical celibacy is mandated for all clergy, priests, deacons, and bishops. But there's lots of exceptions to this. Again, it gets complicated. Most Eastern Catholic traditions don't require clerical celibacy, people converting into Roman Catholicism, like if you're an Anglican priest and you're married, you become Catholic a lot of times, you can be ordained, you can be a priest, permanent deacons, there's an exception. Also, this is not a dogma. So this is very different from videos I do on like, you know, the immaculate conception of Mary, things like that. This is a discipline so it can change. I sincerely hope that it will change. Now let me begin by stating what the Protestant concern about this historically hasn't been, okay? The concern here is not just a general

opposition to celibacy as though celibacy is bad, as though everyone, all Christians should get married, or all ministers should get married far from it. Celibacy is a good and honorable state into which God calls some Christians and some ministers. It's a blessing to the entire church when God does call someone into that. It's very clear from 1st Corinthians 7, as a we shall discuss in this video, nor is the concern with voluntary taking of vows unto a certain lifestyle. Instead, the concern is making celibacy mandatory for an entire class of Christians, such as certain kinds of clergy. And related to that, the concern is a conception of celibacy as intrinsically more excellent than marriage in its nature, as opposed to

just a more fitting and expedient arrangement according to God's calling. That was a mouthful. I'm getting those terms from Francis Turriton, but we're going to focus mainly upon this issue of the mandatory nature of it for clergy. Before I give an argument for that concern, I want to start by acknowledging that many Protestant contexts today have too low of view of celibacy. You know, it's actually interesting that a lot of times in our ideological disagreements, we can learn something precisely while we have a concern with the opposite side. You can actually disagree with someone and still learn and see your own blind spots in the process. And Protestants have a lot of blind spots. I actually think this is one of the major weaknesses of the Protestant traditions, an area where we have overreacted. And I've

seen this in my own life in certain Protestant contexts where singleness is viewed with suspicion. The expectation is every single Christian should get married. Sometimes single people even feel a little left out in the church. That's a real problem. That's where we've fallen away from 1 Corinthians 7 in a different direction. Nonetheless, the requirement of clerical celibacy such that it's unlawful for certain ministers to marry is a serious problem. And here what I want to show is that this runs contrary to both the teaching of scripture and the practice of the early church, but more deeply I want to draw out a pastoral concern reflected in both scripture and church history about adding on to God's laws. The basic idea of this whole video can be condensed

and expressed very briefly. When we add on to the laws of God, we actually weaken them and we injure the church. Before I dive in, I do want to mention a book I got recently that I've been reading through. I think people of my channel will be interested in this and find a very edifying. It's a practical devotional book. It's great. Mark Vrogop, Waiting Isn't a Waste, The Surprising Comfort of Trusting God in the Uncertainties of Life. I'll hold it up.

This is a great book. I had the privilege of endorsing this one as well. And it's very edifying, very readable, and very relevant to the modern world. You know, society tends to speed up life. Have you noticed this? We all have things that are constantly filling up our free time. But waiting is a wonderful discipline that we all have to go through. Somebody once said, most of life is waiting.

And if you're in a waiting season of life or you just want to learn more about this topic, I think you find this book really edifying. I put a link in the video description, check it out. I'm also going to put a link in the video description to my new book. website, if you pre-order the book, I'm filming this in July, my book, what it means to be Protestant, comes out in August. If you pre-order the book, you get a bonus chapter, you get a walk-through video, you get various other perks. I'll put a link to that website in the video description as well. All right, let's start with scripture, because the Bible is very clear on this.

The biblical case against mandated clerical celibacy is very straightforward. We are not left to wonder in scripture, what are the qualifications required for those stepping into the office of bishop or presbyter? Whether you think they're separate offices, or whether you think those offices were originally one in the same, which I think actually in these qualifications lists, this is one of the passages that seems to suggest that because the terms are used interchangeably, the two lists are unmistakably parallel and so forth, but leaving aside that, even if you don't agree with that, It's very clear in these lists. I mean, what we have here in Holy Scripture is literally a list of what is required for someone

to be a bishop or a presbyter. That's the very purpose of these passages. And both of these, I'll put them up on the screen, both of these passages have the phrase husband of one wife in them, and both reference this person's conduct towards their children. Now, there's lots of valid questions that can be worked through regarding the interpretation of these passages, but one thing that should be very clear is that a mandatory celibacy is not what Paul is envisioning here as what qualifies someone to be in these offices. Not only is celibacy not included in the list of qualifications, but being the husband of one wife is included. Okay? So clearly, Paul thinks marriage is permissible

to the holder of this office. Paul could not possibly restrict the number of wives to one if he actually thought it should have been zero. And this is, of course, the practice of the apostles themselves, not just their teaching, but their practice. Many of the apostles were married. This is true of Peter. We read about his mother-in-law in the Gospels. We also read about Paul, speaking of the right of an apostle, to take a wife in 1st Corinthians 9-5. He says, that other apostles and the brothers of Jesus and Peter himself have exercised that right. On top of that, you have the old covenant era where the Levitical priests, despite going through elaborate ritual purity regulations, were not forbidden to marry, and even the high priest

took a wife. So this is very simple. We don't even need to dwell on this super long. It's pretty clear. we have a situation in which all throughout the period of God's revelation to Israel, and then through the apostles to the first century church, during this period of God's revelation, marriage is never forbidden to the leaders among God's people. And that should settle the question right there. Honestly, Titus 1 and 1st Timothy 3 should settle the question, because we have no right to overturn the clear

teaching of scripture. When we have scriptural passages that directly address the question we're considering, you know, the whole purpose of 1st Timothy 3 and Titus 1 is to answer the point under review, namely, what are the qualifications for a bishop or a presbyter? What do you look for? What do you have to have? And so it is wrong for people to come after the fact and set over the clear and direct teaching of scripture, inferential reasonings and sets of deductions like, well, you know, the office of bishop is to be held in high honor, celibacy is conducive to that end, and therefore, and you're getting this sort of reasoning, and it's like, no, God has already spoken to this, and God knows more than we know how to set up his church and the offices in

his church. Here's how Martin Kemnitz puts it, the Lutheran theologian, who could decide more rightly and better whether marriage is suitable for the ecclesiastical ministry than the Holy Spirit himself, who is the author and governor of the ministry. He continues, since, however, this question has been ex-professo, that means by a professional or by an expert, decided in scripture, what else is it? Not only to argue otherwise, and on the opposite side, but to come forward with the most rigid laws and to defend them harshly, then to place one's mouth in heaven, and to justify the wisdom of God, and to want to instruct and help God with our counsels, to answer back to God, yes, to contradict one's creator.

That's a succinct way of stating the concern here. This is the essential backbone of the concern of this video, and my concern as a Protestant. Basically, we have no right whatsoever to contravene God. God said clerics can be married. no one should muzzle what God said. No one should muzzle God. Let God's word stand. That's the basic appeal and the indignation that comes against just the amazing fact that this could be overturned.

Basically, don't add on new commandments that run contrary to the commandments that God gave. All right. So, by the way, insofar as the forbidding of marriage does come up in the New Testament, is viewed negatively. Paul references the teaching of demons. And the first thing he notes is that this forbidding of marriage, along with the forbidding of certain kinds of food, Kemnitz describes how the devil, he says the devil is the enemy of lawful marriage. And he talks about how the devil tries to sow the tears of superstitious celibacy in the church while the apostles are still alive in teaching, but they are kept down by the watchfulness of the apostles. And he gives 1 Timothy 5,

through 15 is another example of that. That's another relevant passage here. One of the things we can observe from 1 Timothy 4 is that there are forms of asceticism and spiritual rigor and discipline that are wrong. They reject what God has actually given to us as good gifts. They have a kind of appearance of a more manageable kind of piety, but they're not true piety. Paul talks about this in Colossians 2.23, that there's laws that have an appearance of wisdom, but they don't actually restrain sin and lead to godliness. And the biblical teaching about marriage is that it is a good gift from God. There is nothing dirty about it. There is nothing unclean about it. Hebrews 134 says, let marriage be held in honor among all. In Genesis 2, we see that prior to sin,

Adam and Eve lived together in marriage, the book of Song of Solomon. However, you interpret that book, even if you think as I do there's an allegorical thrust to it. Nonetheless, it clearly views marriage as a good institution from God. I remember at my wedding, my dad preached the homily in one of the things he said that always has stuck with me. I often hear my dad's voice banging around in my head. He said, marriage is a divine institution. God made it. Democracy is a human invention. Human beings made it. Human beings can make useful things, but marriage is even beyond that. Marriage is a divine idea divine institution, it's a good thing. Now, this does not mean that everyone should get married. Celibacy is an honorable calling that some Christians are led into rightly by the Lord. This is evident

in 1st Corinthians 7, which is, 1st Corinthians 7 is a key passage. It's not about clergy, though. It's about Christians generally. And here Paul celebrates celibacy as a good gift, and he speaks of the benefits it has over marriage. So, for example, he talks about how celibacy allows you to live with more single-minded devotion to the Lord and so forth. But Paul is also clear that marriage is a good and honorable state. Okay, there's no sin or shame at all in getting married. Okay, so the difference here is not between like, you know, super holy versus a little bit contaminated. That is not the difference. and I know no church officially teaches that, but you see that mindset creeping in in church history, as we'll get to. And Paul is also very clear in this chapter that celibacy, though it is a good

gift that has unique benefits, is not a gift given to everybody. He says, each one has his own gift from God, one of one kind, and one of another. And this seems to reflect the teaching of Christ as well. In Matthew 19, Jesus is teaching about marriage. And in response to this, some say, well, is better to not marry at all. And he says, not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are unics who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this, receive it. Here is the biblical teaching. It's very simple, and it should not be altered. The gift of celibacy is given to some Christians. The gift of marriage is given to others,

either one is sin, and neither one should be required for an entire class of Christians, like clergy. Why is that? Before moving on, I want to draw attention to the pastoral concern, or one of them, one of the pastoral concerns underneath the biblical teaching that you see in 1st Corinthians 7, and it's this sense of moderation and a sense of sensitivity to human frailty. Okay, you see this in verses 2 and 9 of this chapter. chapter. Paul says, because of the temptation to sexual immorality in verse two, verse nine, if they cannot exercise self-control, Paul seems to understand that if you mandate celibacy to those who are not called

to that office, to that role, then it will lead them into sin because of human frailty. And this is the concern with a mandated clerical celibacy is that it throws off the moderation and and sensitivity reflected in that aspect of biblical teaching. Instead, it adds on laws and burdens and commandments that God has not given, and it ultimately places a yoke around the neck of people. It does lead to sin and ungodliness. This is the fundamental pastoral concern behind this issue. When we add on to the laws of God, we undermine them.

We don't protect God's laws by adding new ones. This was the error of the Pharisees where they fenced the law. they add on all these new laws. The best way to protect and honor and promote the law of God is to preach it and proclaim it and obey it. By the way, a great book on the law, the role of the law in the life of a Christian is Jaram Barr's delighting in the law of the Lord. This book, one of the things this book taught me is that legalism, which is when we add on to the law of God or we use it for a wrong purpose, doesn't result from having too high of you of the law, but having too low of you. When we have too low of you of God's laws, then we will feel a temptation to add on new ones

that may feel more manageable or that may feel more outwardly impressive. But the better approach is simply to stick with the commandments God has actually given. Okay. Now, let me bear this pastoral concern out a bit by looking at church history. We won't try to be exhaustive. we'll do two things. We'll state the general picture of church history, and then I want to hone in on six key episodes to document this pastoral concern about how adding on new laws that God hasn't given doesn't lead to godliness. I'll put up the six episodes here, Dionysius of Corinth,

just so you can see where we're going. He's a second century bishop apostolic constitutions is a set of texts compiled, probably dating around the third or fourth century, probably fourth century, Paphneudius at Nicaea 1. He's a bishop at the First Council of Nicaa. Eustathius, he's a fourth century bishop who's an extreme rigorous out in Armenia in the fourth century. We'll talk about Salvion of Marseilles. He's a bishop up in Gaul who's opposing an over-emphasis upon celibacy there. And then we'll talk about Ulrich of Imola, that's in Italy in the 11th century. I know these are kind of obscure examples, but in each one of these, you'll see a pastoral concern coming out. But let's start with the big picture of church history first.

I'm not going to do as a systematic walkthrough here. Kemnitz has a good one if you want to see one. Basically, to state the big picture, though, I think it's actually pretty clear that there's not a kind of universal practice of clerical celibacy that goes back to the apostles. No one really disputes this. You find married clergy all over in the patristic era and going into the medieval era, even famous ones, you know, Ironaeus and Tratullian and Gregory of Neville. Nisa and Hillary and Gregory of Nazianzis, the elder, and many, many other clergy are married.

And you don't find any sort of restrictions early on against clerical marriage. They first start popping up in a sort of wholesale way in certain local synods. The first one that I can find is in the fourth century, but then there's lots of opposition all along the way. And well, long into the medieval era, you have tension and we'll walk through that. So basically, but so you don't, so that's on the one hand. At the same time, there is a strong interest in celibacy and in virginity. That's a very powerful force in the early church.

In the best expressions of that, this is simply an extension of Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians 7, that celibacy is a wonderful gift that frees one to serve the Lord, and it's a holy state to live in. Unfortunately, some expressions of this interest in virginity turn into a kind of over awe or enarmament with it, often accompanied with a perception of marriage as morally subordinate or even kind of dirty or base or contaminated in some way. Sometimes related to this, you'll see even certain perceptions of sex within marriage as unholy in some way.

Of course, I'm not saying this is everywhere. but you can find this creeping in here and there, this mentality that thinks of virgins as kind of the all-star Christians, and they're put in a separate class. There's a kind of rigorous tendency like this that is creeping in. And so the general picture of what you see in church history as it's unfolding is this kind of creeping intrusion in various places of various kinds of this more rigorous tendency, and then resistance and opposition in the other direction, along with some of the pastoral concerns I've already articulated from the scripture with the result that there's this strife and struggle and kind of a slow process of accretion where finally in the medieval west

around the 12th century you have kind of the overcoming of formal opposition to universal clerical celibacy and it doesn't take root in the east like it does in the west but you can trace out the step-by-step process I use the word accretion because I think it's a helpful word get at the idea here. So, you know, you can find one of the early steps is the disapproval of second marriages, which you can see in Turtullian and some of the Montanists, and then you find in various places disapproval for marriage among the clergy, but not an outright forbidding of it. And then particularly in the fourth century, at various local councils, you can see certain restrictions coming in. Sometimes marriage after ordination is forbidden. Sometimes it's forbidden

to the higher offices, but allowed for deacons. You have different options. The earliest full restriction that I can find is out in Spain at the Senate of Alvira, Canon 33, I'll put up. But as these steps are being taken, there's also the resistance, okay? So you can find kind of a spectrum of different views. You know, if you think among the church fathers, you might think of like Epiphanius on the more rigorous side and John Chrysostom with a more elevated view of marriage, and you can find different options. And this dynamic is working out where the rigorous impulse is creeping in and then pushback is coming in the other direction.

What I want to draw attention to is some of the pastoral concerns in the opposition to the rigorous tendency, if that makes sense. Let's work through six examples. So already in the second century, you have these categories which will remain in the discussion from Hebrews 5 coming in, and being applied to this discussion, where basically milk and solid food are being used as metaphors to refer to the basic principles

of Christianity versus mature teaching. And you can find certain Christian leaders associating the more rigorous emphasis on celibacy with the solid food and the more lax allowance of marriage with the milk. So, for example, Eusebius tells us about Panitas, who's a bishop on the island of Crete, around 170. Eusebius likes him a lot. But he describes how he uses these categories in this way. And Panetus is responding to another bishop, Dionysius, who's the bishop of Corinth, and Dionysius is opposing him. And Dionysius's appeal to him is to not to lay upon the brethren a grievous and compulsory burden in regard to chastity, but to have regard to the weakness of the

multitude. Now right there, you can already see the pastoral burn there, burden there, that is reflective of 1st Corinthians 7-2 and 7-9, the weakness of the multitude. You know, this is the concern. You go beyond the laws of God, and you damage the flock because you don't have a sensitivity to the weakness of the multitude. Now, it's disputed whether this is about clerical celibacy. Some people have argued for that. I can't see any textual basis for that. Maybe it's just about celibacy in general. Either way, you see the pastoral concern here in this kind of disagreement and the appeal of Dionysius and the ways it intersects with Paul's teaching in 1st Corinthians 7, this is going to come up over and over, just like Panitas's use of Hebrews 5 is going to come up over and over.

Later in the Apostolic Constitutions, which is a collection of church orders texts, probably dating around to the 4th century, you find a prohibition of clergy having a concubine or being married twice after baptism in Canon 17, or against taking as a wife a widow or divorced woman or harlot or servant or one belonging to the theater in Canon 18, but it does not prohibit marriage as such. And so much of the later opposition to clerical celibacy is going to appeal to these canons. These are really important in the later discussion to say, look, clerical celibacy was not the practice of the earliest Christians. Instead, the apostolic constitutions, appear to assume that clergy are married because it forbids clergy from casting off their wives

under the pretense of piety. Obviously, make no sense to have a canon like that if marriage was not practiced among the clergy. Now, there in that word, the pretense, you see a little bit of the pastoral concern, right? The pretense of piety. A lot of times when you go beyond the laws of God, It's more about pretense than substance. That's what we saw in Colossians too as well. And again, note, the pastoral concern reflected in the apostolic constitutions can also be seen in this canon where you find the danger of abstaining for marriage on the grounds that it's wrong. So the idea here is it's wrong to abstain for marriage if he abominates these things,

forgetting that all things were very good, Genesis 131, and God made man, male and female, Genesis 1.26. So you see the language here. This reminds us of 1st Timothy 4, right? The idea is don't reject what God has given as good. When we add on to the commandments of God, this is what we're in effect doing. God has given us a good gift, and we're rejecting it as though it's not a good gift. That's what an over-rigorism does. The ecclesiastical historian Socrates Scholasticus, or Socrates of Constantinople, is a 5th century Greek church historian. He tells us about another dispute about related to all this that comes up at Nicaa 1. When we think of Nicaa 1, we often just think of, you know,

Aryanism and so forth, but there's other more on the ground sort of pastoral things working out. One of the things that the bishops are considering is a requirement for all bishops, presbyters, and deacons to abstain from sex within marriage. And one of the bishops named Paphneudius, he's a bishop from Egypt, who is himself a celibate man, and he's a highly respected Christian. He had had one of his eyes gouged out during persecution. He was respected for his godliness and for his miracles. And he's opposing this. Listen to his rationale. Now, when discussion on this matter was impending, Paphneudius, having arisen in the midst of the assembly of bishops, earnestly entreated them not to impose so heavy a yoke on the ministers of religion. Note that word yoke, asserting that marriage itself is

honorable and the bed undefiled. Hebrews 13. for urging before God that they ought not to injure the church by two stringent restrictions. For all men said he cannot bear the practice of rigid continents, neither perhaps would the chastity of the wife of each be preserved. So he's, and he persuades the counsel of that position. So my interest here is to draw attention again to the pastoral concern. He's saying this is a yoke. Don't put this yoke on people.

Marriage is honorable. it's a good thing, and it will actually injure the church if you impose two stringent restrictions with respect to it because not everyone's suited for that, not everyone's called to that. If you act as though everyone is called to that, or even every person within a certain class like clergy, then it leads to ungodliness. Another church historian from the fifth century named Sosaman, or Soseman, in his ecclesiastical history describes how later in the fourth century there's a bishop in Armenia named Eustathius, who is very rigorous, and he's imposing all kinds of ascetic practices concerning food and clothing and also marriage. And Soseman references

his disciples who condemned marriage refused to pray to God in the house. of married persons, despised married presbyters, fasted on Lord's days, held their assemblies in private houses, denounced the riches altogether without part in the kingdom of God, condemned those who partook of animal food. And so the local bishops there convene a synod and condemn his teachings, including his negative view of marriage. I'll put up some examples of various canons so that you can see. But what I really want to draw out here is, again, the pastoral concern reflected in their decisions. And you can see this in their sonautical letter,

where they talk about basically how the teachings associated with Eustathias have a kind of appearance of godliness, but they're actually ungodly in their results. And they tend to marriages being broken up, and they tend to people being unable to fulfill. the commitments that they have made and committing adultery. Another example is in Gaul in the 5th century, a Christian named Salvean, who is a bishop of Marseilles, and he's criticizing those who make a quick conversion to God and pledges to God,

but then quickly fall away from it. One of the examples of this he gives is people who make a vow of celibacy and then quickly fall away from it. And his appeal, I'll just read this one little sentence. this really gets at this idea of adding on new laws. He says, sins were forbidden us by God, not marriage. Rappen or rapin is plunder or theft, by the way. But that's the basic reasoning here, and that's the pastoral concern,

is you're forbidding things that God is not forbidden. You know, God told us not to sin. He didn't tell us not to marry. And this is the concern about adding on new laws. And by the way, he's talking about clergy as well as lay Christians. I looked up this passage and read it through. It's a really interesting thing. I'll put up an example so you know that this was one of the issues being disputed in his time and place.

Now, we don't have time to trace out every area. Again, Kemnitz goes through and he's talking about the spread of mandated clerical celibacy throughout Europe in this kind of late patristic and into the early medieval period. in Spain and Ireland and Denmark and Bulgaria and all these places. You can see volume three of the examination of the Council of Trent. He goes through region by region. But one thing to note is that even where clerical celibacy is formally accepted, during this span of time on the ground,

it's widely disregarded in actual practice. And Philip Schaff quotes a Roman Catholic historian who notes this, saying in the seventh down to the end of the 10th century, as a matter of fact, the law of celibacy was little observed in a great part of the Western Church, but as a matter of law, the Roman pontiffs and the councils were constant in their proclamation of its obligation. And that's what you find. If you read through this time period, you find this strife, you find this struggle, because

there's resistance to this all throughout this time period. You know, there's no resolution to this issue. As I said, you find another push in the 11th century under the reforms of Pope Gregory the 7th, And this is around the time, the same century, Peter Damien writes his book on the celibacy of priests. So things are starting to get cemented in at this point. In the next century, at the second Lateran council, you have a condemnation of marriage for priest-deacons, sub-deacons, monks and nuns.

And there seems to be kind of a quieting of formal opposition after that point, except among separatist groups like the Waldensians, and then, of course, again, at the Reformation. But leading up to that and throughout this time in the high Middle Ages, there's still a lot of resistance. And I'll just draw attention to one letter that is advocating for clerical marriage that has been falsely attributed to Ulrich Bishop of Augsburg, who was a German bishop in the 8th century during the times of the reforms of Boniface. But it's actually probably written by a different Ulrich, Ulrich of Imola, which is a city in northern Italy. And this letter is written to Pope Nicholas the second around 1060, so late 11th

century. And it's opposing clerical celibacy on a lot of the same grounds I've drawn attention to. It draws attention to Old Testament practice. It talks about Matthew 19. It talks about 1st, Corinthians 7. It even talks about 1st Timothy 3 in order that you should know with certainty that it should not be absolutely forced, who did not make this vow. and then it goes on in quotes 1 Timothy 3. He makes the appeal to the precedent of the early church, as we have done. He talks about the apostolic constitutions and so forth. It's pretty obvious to see.

He talks about Nicaa 1. You know, it's pretty obvious to see. This is not something that actually goes back to the apostles, and this letter is making that case. But what I want to highlight again, not giving an exhaustive treatment of this here, is just looking at the pastoral concern that's underneath this. Because, again, the concern is that going farther than God, adding on new commandments that God is not given doesn't lead to actual godliness.

Says, I was worried for those who find it difficult to stick to the scriptures, because they, who barely obey a just prescription, once they have transgressed the unjust, an oppressive, indeed intolerable disposition of their pastor, would no longer feel bound to the commandments. Okay, did you follow that reasoning? He's saying, obeying what God has actually commanded, scripture is hard enough. If you add on new, oppressive, and intolerable commands, people just give up. And Ulrich says that this tendency to go beyond what God has commanded is like the Pharisees in Matthew 23, where there's greater concern for outward appearance than inward reality. Now, I don't think he is intending, and I'm certainly not intending to judge the motives of every

single person who might advocate for this view, but he's speaking to the on-the-ground realities of what actually happens. And I won't read this entire quote I'll put up. But what I want to draw attention to is the last two sentences where there's this comparison made with the Pharisees who care more about the opinion of men than of God. And I'll simply say, without reading the more lurid parts of that letter, the sexual immorality that became rampant in times where where clerical celibacy has been imposed is a real thing that we need to take seriously. I don't even go into that in this video, though. I'm going to make more of just a straight-up theological case, but that's, it's real.

And you feel Ulrich's burden about that if you read that entire letter. So the idea here is simple. Going further than God, adding on new commandments that God is not given doesn't lead to actual godliness. That's the concern coming up again and again from the opposition, through our church history to the rigorous tendency. So just to sort of sum up and conclude, we've seen in this pastoral concern,

a concern about going beyond what God has commanded. You see that in Solvian, for example, where he's saying, God forbid sin, not marriage. You see a concern about rejecting as evil, what God has given as good. You see that in the apostolic constitutions. You see it in 1 Timothy 4, 1 through 3. and then you can see this concern about being harsh and insensitive to human weakness and human frailty

and human temptation. And you see that in Dionysius, you see that in Paphneudius' comments, you see that in Ulrich. That's the genius of God's commandments, is that they're tailor-suited to our actual situation. And all of these concerns coming out map on very neatly to the biblical concerns that we've highlighted. So the upshot of it all is just to say it's pastorally wise to restrict ourselves to mandating what God has mandated. Okay? What God has mandated, what God has commanded in the scripture on this matter is very, very clear. First Timothy 1.1, excuse me, 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1, to say nothing of the actual practice of the apostles.

in line with Old Testament precedent, that's very clear. That should just settle the discussion, period. What the Apostles' command should stand. And we should focus on that, and when we add on new commandments that run contrary to those commandments, this does not lead to godliness in the church. It leads to ungodliness. And, you know, I often talk about resting in the gospel, finding assurance in the gospel in the grace of God.

it's also the case we can find rest in the commandments of God. Because when we obey them, we know we've done enough. That's what God is commanded. God has not commanded us to do more than what we find in the scripture. We shouldn't go beyond what we find. And actually, you know, you find that in the Old Testament law, commandments about not adding on or taking away from what God commanded. And there's a sense of rest that comes when we just focus on what God actually said to do.

So there's my appeal. Kind of brief. I tried to go fast, mainly because I'm super busy today and I'm about to run on to other things. If you found value in this video, so this is the one video in a conversation. I'm sure we need to talk more about all this. But if you find value in this, help me get it out there. It does help when you like and share the video. I try not to get into the algorithm games and too much. I try to just focus on make it, make good quality, and then let everything else take care of itself. You can't help me with that by helping it get out there more. And if you want to support the work that I'm doing at Truth Unites, check out my web. website, regular monthly donors get access to private community where you get early access to videos. We can interact with each other a bit. And I also have similar benefits for patrons on my Patreon account. So if you want to support, that's an option that's available to you. Thanks for watching.

Let me know what you think in the comments. And this is a really important issue. This is a really important issue for on the ground how the church actually functions. So we need to give it more attention. All right, thanks for watching everybody.