The Church, the State and marriage

[phkrause]

This is the translation from the Jewish Bible: Deuteronomy 22:28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life. this is I believe what Shane was saying.

pk

[phkrause]

And this is Exodus 22:15&16 15. If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall provide her with a marriage contract as a wife. 16. If her father refuses to give her to him [in marriage], he shall weigh out money according to the dowry of the virgins.

[Woody]

This is the translation from the Jewish Bible: Deuteronomy 22:28. If a man finds a virgin girl who was not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29. the man who lay with her shall give fifty [shekels of] silver to the girl's father, and she shall become his wife, because he violated her. He shall not send her away all the days of his life. this is I believe what Shane was saying.

pk

[phkrause]

Good point Redwood. My other thought would be, even if they are not found out, God still knows. I think sometimes we get the idea that if we are not found out we're save. And than one day a light goes off in our brains and we relize no matter how much we try to hide from others what we're doing, God see us anyway.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

That's how it's translated from Hebrew to English.

[Tom Wetmore]

Nobody said anything about widows, which is a quite different situation.

You need to read the whole chapter 22 of Deuteronomy, in particular verses 13-21. If a man found out that a woman he took as a wife was not a virgin she was to be taken out and stoned for being a whore.

Does it not strike you as oddly different that the "penalty" for this illicit sex with the virgin is far less harsh than the penalty for almost all other sexual sins? Including the very similar violation in town, where the virgin does not scream for help? Mosaic law called for death to sexual sinners. But that's not what happens here. What do you suppose makes the difference?

[there buster]

Tom is absolutely correct here, Shane.

There were no elaborate wedding ceremonies in ancient times. When a man had sex with an unmarried woman, she became his wife thereby. The Mosaic law is simply the equivalent of a shotgun marriage. "You took this woman, now she's your responsibility." End of story.

[Stan]

I believe the age group they are talking about for the Virgin and getting the fathers blessing, was usually pre-13 or so.

[Dr. Shane]

That is really reading something into the Bible that isn't there. I can't go there. Deut. 22:13-21 is clearly talking about fraud. It is dealing with a woman that presents herself as a virgin when she is not.

The reason there is such a wide consensus in regard to sex and marriage within Christianity is because the Bible is so clear about it. If we are to believe what Tom is preaching we must conclude that all mainstream Christian denominations are wrong. Pre-marital sex could not exist because the act of sex itself would make one married.

[there buster]

We have plenty of evidence that 13 was considered marriageable age in ancient cultures. Remember, life expectancy was quite short.

[there buster]

Quote:

If we are to believe what Tom is preaching we must conclude that all mainstream Christian denominations are wrong. Pre-marital sex could not exist because the act of sex itself would make one married.

Quite the contrary. None of the ancient cultures under discussion were aware of rulings by Christian denominations. And those definitions were conditioned by the cultures in which they occurred. Women were chattel in the OT. There was no 'age of consent' for women. Look at how Abram used Sarai with Abimelech.

You are reading today's understanding of marriage into a culture in which women were chattel, polygamy was common, concubines were numerous--even Jacob had two wives and two concubines--(shameless plug: I wrote the book). So no, they would not have been able to conceive (no pun intended) of premarital sex. A man either had sex with a woman who was his property, or with one who was someone else's property. If that woman was a virgin, that someone else was her father, and the man owed her father the price of his property. If that someone else was her husband, then the man had to pay with his life.

What Christian denominations think about marriage after the 1st century AD has no bearing on what pre-Christian cultures understood 15-20 centuries before Christ.

[Dr. Shane]

Tom is absolutely correct here, Shane.

I am familiar with this liberal theology. I reject it as being unbiblical. One has to accept this liberal theology first and then read it into the Bible in order to see it there.

[Dr. Shane]

You are reading today's understanding of marriage into a culture in which women were chattel, polygamy was common, concubines were numerous--even Jacob had two wives and two concubines...

No, I am simply reading the Bible as its authors intended for it to be read. There are scores of Bible commentaries that agree with me. In order to read it differently, one has to adopt the liberal theology first, then go to the Bible and read the liberal theology into it. If I was going to do that I wouldn't be an Adventist.

[there buster]

Quote:

No, I am simply reading the Bible as its authors intended for it to be read.

Its authors lived in a culture which you are ignoring. Their understanding of their own words cannot be wrested to fit modern sensibilities.

Quote:

one has to adopt the liberal theology first

LOL. I'll be certain to tell all my seminary professors that.

[Dr. Shane]

Gay theology does the same thing to Scripture. One first adopts the theology and then fits it into Scripture.

[Woody]

Sounds to me like what you are doing Shane. You keep repeating this mantra .... but it does not make it so.

[Dr. Shane]

Redwood, just go to the library of most any Christian seminary and pull out their Bible commentary and read what it says regarding Exodus 22. Indeed, we will read the same thing repeated over and over from one commentary to the next. Exodus 22:16, 17 teaches that pre-marital sex is wrong and gives the father of the girl the right to deny marriage. Some liberal commentaries may disagree although I have yet to see one that does.

[Woody]

There are disagreements upon any belief under the sun. Great minds can disagree. Give me any two Spirit lead people ... and you will find disagreement.

[Tom Wetmore]

That is really reading something into the Bible that isn't there. I can't go there. Deut. 22:13-21 is clearly talking about fraud. It is dealing with a woman that presents herself as a virgin when she is not.

The reason there is such a wide consensus in regard to sex and marriage within Christianity is because the Bible is so clear about it. If we are to believe what Tom is preaching we must conclude that all mainstream Christian denominations are wrong. Pre-marital sex could not exist because the act of sex itself would make one married.

As "there buster" has already said, you are the one "really reading something into the Bible that isn't there." You are imprinting centuries of Christian tradition and Western cultural and social mores on what the Bible actually and literally says. "There buster" has stated it rather well.

Indeed under Mosaic law, if followed to the letter, there would be no "pre-marital" sex. Marital sex was the only sex allowed. Sex was strictly to be within the confines of marriage. If anyone attempted to have sex outside of that relationship, there was a serious price to pay. And if a "shotgun marriage" wasn't possible, then death was the real alternative.

I am not so sure what you think I am "preaching" but you are quite right that mainstream Christian denominations are wrong, if not rather mixed up on this whole topic. This may shock many here, but my personal view of marriage is ultra-conservative. It is singular and for life. What God has joined is not to be separated by anyone for any reason. That is what Jesus was preaching. If forgiveness as Jesus taught it is understood and practiced, divorce is not an option. Christians have become as mixed up about it as the Jews that Jesus confronted when questioned about divorce. He exploded the Mosaic divorce option as not being how God designed marriage. As Jesus stated it, divorce was allowed by Moses because of the people's "hardness of heart", i.e. unwillingness to forgive. But divorce was according to Moses, not God, as Jesus stated it.

Tom

[Woody]

Well said Tom. I think that sums things up rather niecely. I will not pronounce ... " 'nuff said'"

[Tom Wetmore]

I am familiar with this liberal theology. I reject it as being unbiblical. One has to accept this liberal theology first and then read it into the Bible in order to see it there.

. . .

No, I am simply reading the Bible as its authors intended for it to be read. There are scores of Bible commentaries that agree with me. In order to read it differently, one has to adopt the liberal theology first, then go to the Bible and read the liberal theology into it. If I was going to do that I wouldn't be an Adventist.

And that is where your reasoning is not only wrong, it is a self-delusion. You are the one reading things into Scripture. You are not allowing yourself to read it through the eyes of the people in OT times. On this point in particular, and, as shocking as it may seem to some here, my "theology" and my view of Biblical interpretation, is very conservative. I go by the most literal reading, and look for the original intent (think of what that means in Constitutional law) of the authors. Many of those commentaries on which you are relying, reflect a more liberal approach to Biblical interpretation than that since most of them are built on centuries of church tradition.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

It's the old fear of 'liberalism' rearing its head again! Some refuse to read the Bible as it was intended, as the writers understood it.

That certainly isn't true as it relates to me. I am not afraid of liberalism - not even theological liberalism. I find no problem with wearing jewelry - unless one becomes materialistic in which case the problem is much larger than just jewelry. I embrace the idea of ordaining women to be pastors. Those are two hot issue where I definitely side with theological liberals.

In regard to pre-marital sex, I simply see that the Adventist church, as well as most other evangelical denominations, are simply right in the belief that Biblical fornication includes pre-marital sex. That is not what "Shane" thinks. That is mainstream evangelical doctrine. This isn't an issue of Shane or anyone else being afraid of liberalism or trying to read something into Scripture that isn't there. Those that believe sex = marriage in a Biblical context have a right to believe that but they are among those embracing liberal theology. That is not mainstream evangelical thought.

[Woody]

Quote:

That is not mainstream evangelical thought.

I've never desired to go along with mainstream evangelical thought.

[Dr. Shane]

Have you checked your SDA commentary on it? I don't have one. I normally use John Gills Bible Commentary although I should by an Adventist one. I think most commentaries will agree that there was no marriage until the father consented. The father had to consent first before the couple was considered married.

[Woody]

Civil or Religious?