The Church, the State and marriage

[phkrause]

I didn't either have to have a blood test to be married.

pk

[there buster]

Quote:

While I didn't get a blood test, I did get my father-in-law's permission and bought him a refrigerator so, that is kind of like a dowry.

I'm amazed at how many ways there are to miss the point.

Times and customs change.

[John317]

First of all, the highly speculative "scholarship" that Mary and Joseph never had sex is largely in service of Marian theology that holds the perpetual virginity of Mary the Mother of God who was "ever virgin". The step further in that very Catholic heresy is that she herself was the product of immaculate conception free from the taint of any original sin and that she lived her whole life without sin. To engage in intercourse would have tainted her. Sexual intercourse was viewed as passing on original sin, if not the orginal sin itself.

All quite true, Tom. But that doesn't change the fact that they were married for over 9 months without having sex, and also that we simply don't know if they ever did have sex. (See comments in next post on the significance of the word "until" in Matt. 1: 2.)

Quote:

As for Mary and Joseph being married "in the eyes of God", I shudder at the thought that you think to have a view through His eyes to even say that, much less know it to be a true fact. That is beyond speculation and of a most dangerous sort... Where is your proof?

Are you saying you don't think they were married in the eyes of God? The Bible itself plainly says they were married. According to Matt. 1: 18, 19 & Luke 1: 27, Joseph and Mary were "pledged to be married," and afterwards Joseph considered "divorcing" Mary. He couldn't have done that if they hadn't gone through the formalities of getting "engaged." Getting divorced would have entailed Joseph's signing legal documents. This didn't happen unless the couple were recognized to be husband and wife in marriage.

Quote:

I suspect that when God did the miracle in Mary's womb, He was little concerned about human conventions of marriage.

Both the Bible and the Spirit of prophecy teach that believers are to be good citizens and in submission to the rules of law of the society in which we live, unless those laws contradict the laws of God. Jesus himself said, "Render unto Caesar the things of Caesar, and the things of God to God." We may be sure God the Father thinks the same way.

Quote:

As for Jewish authorities, again where is your evidence?

The fact that Joseph and Mary were pledged to be married, and that Joseph was considering "divorce" shows that they were married in the eyes of the law and society, and this before they had sexual relations. The Jews of that time viewed an "engagement" as being officially married (see Deut. 22: 23, 24), and the only way to break the betrothal was to sign divorce documents.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course they do but just having sex was never all that was required to be Biblically married. Like I said, I don't have an Adventist Bible commentary but I doubt that is what it says. What I have stated is way beyond being my thoughts or my beliefs. It represents evangelical thoughts and evangelical beliefs. What I have been saying is mainstream Christian understanding of Scripture. They idea that sexual intercourse, by itself, at one time was considered to be marriage in the eyes of God is simply a far out belief just like gay theology. I can't go there. I am one of those Sola Scriptura guys that isn't into reading my opinions into the Bible.

[John317]

Well, the text (Matthew 1:25) that you rely on to establish their lack of sex before Jesus was born says that Joseph did not "know" her until Jesus was born. That certainly infers that "knowing" her started after that since it infers a change or transition from the previous assertion. If he never "knew" her the phrase "until..." wouldn't have been necessary.

The word "until" does not tell us that they had sex after Jesus' birth. The point of the verse is to show that they did not have sexual intercourse in order to produce the baby. It's emphasizing that Mary was a virgin at the time of the birth of the child.

For similar uses of "until," see 1 Sam 15: 35; 2 Sam. 6: 23; Matt. 12: 20; 22: 44.

1 Samuel 15: 35 says, "Samuel went no more to see Saul UNTIL the day of his death." If we go by your rule, it would mean Samuel went to see Saul AFTER his death.

2 Sam. 6: 23 says Michal had no more children TILL the day of her death.

Obviously the word "until" does not mean she had children after her death. In the same way, the word "until" cannot be construed to mean that Mary had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Again, its purpose is to emphasize that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.

[Tom Wetmore]

Yep! As "there buster" said "I'm amazed at how many ways there are to miss the point."

...Or should that be "avoid the point"?

You would have thought that I said that marriage is only about sex.

[Dr. Shane]

I think we have entered the world of Clinton and the meaning of what 'is', is!

By the way, since people are reluctant to answer your 3 questions...

Has anyone checked the Adventist commentary yet?

Which three questions are we referring to? The ones based on the Catholic theology of annulment?

[there buster]

Quote:

Obviously the word "until" does not mean she had children after her death. In the same way, the word "until" cannot be construed to mean that Mary had sex with Joseph after the birth of Jesus. Again, its purpose is to emphasize that Mary was a virgin at the time of Jesus' birth.

I am wondering what kind of emotional investment in an issue produces such tortured reasoning.

If Mary had died in childbirth, your reading would at least make some sense. However, since she was still alive at the crucifixion, we know she did not. Since the marriage continued after the birth of Jesus, it is overwhelmingly likely that Joseph 'knew' her afterwards.

Quote:

For similar uses of "until," see 1 Sam 15: 35; 2 Sam. 6: 23; Matt. 12: 20; 22: 44.

Once again, if the original language of any of those verses was English, and if they did not span nearly a thousand years of time, there might be the slightest bit of validity to that assertion.

However, I must point out, since it seems to have escaped you, that the OT verses were in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek. A quick examination of the Greek word ἕως indicates that(the word actually used in Matthew) indicates not the length of time, but the termination of a state. In other words, to the degree that the Greek tells us something, it indicates that the state of "not knowing" ended after Jesus birth.

Of course, common sense would lead to the same conclusion.

[Tom Wetmore]

...but common sense interferes with efforts at avoiding and missing the point...

And part of the common nonsensical avoidance is to simply ignore obvious and hard to refute evidence. The most obvious evidence in this case I mention quite specifically -

Quote:

And there is quite significant Biblical evidence that Jesus had brothers and sisters and Mary is referred to as their mother.

There are at least a dozen specific references in the NT to Jesus' brothers, several of which also indicate he had sisters. Four brothers are identified by name, (and perhaps one sister by name) and in several references, Mary is identified as the mother of two of those named brothers.

And both Matthew and Luke refer to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokos) son and not her only (monogenes) son, as is done in John 3:16 calling Jesus the only begotten son of God and of several other only children mentioned in the Gospels.

I would say this clearly infers she had other sons after Jesus.

[olger]

I find it strangely ironic that you and some others here seem to have totally missed the point that I am trying to make. The push back from Shane, and it appears from you, seems to be that I am somehow eroding the morality of the question or diminishing marriage. That could not be further from the truth.

What I am saying is that the Biblical principle is that sex is only to be within marriage. It is the one sure act that binds two lives together like no other. You simply cannot separate the two concepts. That is why sex in any other context is dealt with so severely. God sees it as just that important. Murder carries the death penalty. Illicit sex carries the death penalty. Those who end a life must die. Those who kill a marriage must die.

Forgive me if I misunderstood you, Tom.

As to your view on sex within marriage only, we agree. However, a couple who fails to consumate the marriage after 3.5 years is still married (like the couple I worked with once). They just had some moral issues to resolve, and once they did they were free to give themselves to each other. Still married.

[Tom Wetmore]

No problem. I seem to be widely misunderstood in this discussion! I knew you agree with the sex only in marriage point, which was part of the irony.

But that is one side of the coin. Sex is a sacred act of marriage, in God's eyes. Since sin has so tainted or corrupted sex, the other side of the coin seems hard for most to grasp - that marriage is defined by the sexual union of a man and a woman. The initial and continuing point on which I am being misunderstood is the Biblical concept that it is the sexual union that confirms the marriage commitment, seals the deal, and binds the two as one. As it is an action only between the two, God is the only witness. That is highlighted by the oft repeated phrase, "in the eyes of God". My point is that based on the earliest OT references, the Mosaic laws and what Jesus himself said, this joining of two bodies in one is the irrevocable act of marriage, in the eyes of God. Once the sexual act occurs the two lives are joined to make one life by God's design. It is God's design that this is be unbroken for any reason. Having sex is what does it. And that is why illicit sex is dealt with so harshly under Mosaic law and why a man taking the virgin was required to keep her as his wife. He made her his wife by the one act that made her as one with him.

That brings me to the case of the couple you mention. I would still disagree with you that they were "married", in the eyes of God, during the 3.5 years of unconsummated togetherness. In your eyes, OK. And since nobody was disputing it, there was no need for anyone else to think otherwise. That is not to say that God did not honor their commitment to each other, just as with Mary and Joseph until Jesus was born. That it took some length of time for them to "seal the deal" mattered not to a God that doesn't worry about time. It is just that if the couple you were working with had not been able to resolve their issues and broke it off, it would be the basis for annulment, a declaration that the marriage was a nullity, that it simply was never completed and so never was a marriage. And what I am saying is that in God's eyes, since he never saw them join their bodies together in holy wedlock, their unconsummated relationship never was a marriage.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

...My point is that based on the earliest OT references, the Mosaic laws and what Jesus himself said, this joining of two bodies in one is the irrevocable act of marriage, in the eyes of God.

[John317]

Quote:

Once again, if the original language of any of those verses was English, and if they did not span nearly a thousand years of time, there might be the slightest bit of validity to that assertion.

The fact that these words were originally written in Hebrew and Greek does not change the significance of the words as far as our topic is concerned.

If you believe it does, please show evidence that the years between the writing of those verses and our day changes the meaning of heos.

Quote:

However, I must point out, since it seems to have escaped you, that the OT verses were in Hebrew, and the NT in Greek.

Check out the same verses in the LXX, buster. The Greek translators of the Old Testament used the same word, heos, that occurs in the verses of the NT. It's translated "until" or "till." Strongs #2193.

The Hebrew word means the same thing, "until" or "till," and is so translated. (See The Complete Word Study Old Testament.)

[Tom Wetmore]

You are confusing cultural custom in OT times and the divinely ordained moral principle of the matter.

And you are extra-Biblically imprinting your cultural concepts and tradition onto what Scripture actually says. That would be "what we call extra-biblical doctrine because it is a belief arrived at outside of the Scriptures."

Just because the practice is recorded and affirmed in the Bible doesn't indicate that it was mandated, and certainly not for all time. Otherwise we would still have to pay for the wife we take. You are also ignoring the cultural concept that women were mere property that if taken would require restitution or compensation to the one from whom you took the property. And you do not take property without getting permission or it is stealing. That is why you had to ask the father. Look at the full context of Exodus 22 within which the whole rape a virgin set of rules is found. The passage starts out talking about protection of property and restitution for taking and borrowing animals without permission, etc. Stated immediately after that is the rule that the rape of a virgin also requires the payment to her owner (father) of the bride price for a virgin. You use it, you pay for it. And since you broke it beyond repair when you used it, you pay full price just like if you killed the animal you only borrowed. That is because she is damaged goods that nobody else will want to buy. She is now worth less and dishonored, but the father may wish to keep her for the work he can get out of her as a servant. (Remember the worthless son that Jesus talked about that brought dishonor on his father and decided that he could return only as a servant?)

[John317]

There are at least a dozen specific references in the NT to Jesus' brothers, several of which also indicate he had sisters. Four brothers are identified by name, (and perhaps one sister by name) and in several references, Mary is identified as the mother of two of those named brothers.

All of the sons were older than Jesus. In DA 86, 87, 321, Ellen White writes that his brothers were older and the sons of Joseph.

Please quote the verse that you believe identifies Mary as the mother of two of the brothers.

It's likely that the reason Jesus asked John to take care of her after the crucifixion is that Mary didn't have any other children of her own.

Quote:

And both Matthew and Luke refer to Jesus as Mary's firstborn (prototokos) son and not her only (monogenes) son, as is done in John 3:16 calling Jesus the only begotten son of God and of several other only children mentioned in the Gospels.

The fact that a child is called "firstborn" does not necessarily imply that there was a second-born. First-born means "the one and only" or the "only." It's referring to a status, the most excellent.

As John Lightfoot wrote, "The law, in speaking of the firstborn, regarded not whether any were born after or no, but only that none were born before."

Heb. 12: 23 says Jesus is "the first-born of every creature." There is no second-born of every creature.

Technically the first -born might be an only child. See Jamieson, Fausset & Brown's Commentary on Matt. 1: 25.

[John317]

If Mary had died in childbirth, your reading would at least make some sense. However, since she was still alive at the crucifixion, we know she did not. Since the marriage continued after the birth of Jesus, it is overwhelmingly likely that Joseph 'knew' her afterwards.

I also tend to think that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations, but the Bible does not give evidence of this. It's based on assumptions and conjecture. There's certainly no good evidence that Mary had children after she gave birth to Jesus. All the brothers were older than Jesus, and we do not know if the sisters were older or younger.

My point would be that if we discovered that they did not have sex, it would not change the validity of their marriage. The Bible refers to them as married and as husband and wife long before they could possibly have had sexual relations.

[Tom Wetmore]

Would a marriage without any sex be a holier matrimony?

There is no Biblical evidence that the brothers of Jesus were all older or that Joseph was a much older widowed man with children from a previous marriage. One son is referred to in Mark 15:40, somewhat ambiguously, as James "the less" in the KJV. An alternate translation of the Greek which is used in a number of the translations is "younger". That text refers to Mary as his and Joses' mother. (Although some translations have the "of Joses" as "of Joseph" which could be taken as James the younger son of Mary and Joseph. The Greek is ambiguous.) In Matthew 13:55 (Mark 6:3) the 4 brothers named are James, Joses, Juda (Judas) and Simon. And Mary is referred to as Mary the mother of James and Jose in Matthew 27:56.

What EGW wrote was based on long held church tradition dating back to probably the 5th Century when the apocryphal book "The History of Joseph the Carpenter" that claimed to quote Jesus as telling his disciples this fact and that Mary remained a virgin, etc. It was an accepted fact in EGW day and not likely to have been questioned by her, even though the authorship and authenticity of the History of Joseph the Carpenter is quite suspect. Again this was written undoubtedly to support the growing myth of Mary's perpetual viginity and that all the sons had to have been from a previous marriage of Joseph. This is all to support the Catholic doctrine of original sin and none of it is Scriptural. To the contrary, much of it is clearly contradicted by Scripture.

And an additional thought must be considered regarding Jesus profession as a carpenter. Matthew refers to Jesus as the carpenter's son and Mark gives the same account refering to Jesus as the carpenter. Customarily, the eldest son would be most likely to be the father's apprentice to take over the family business. If Jesus was not the eldest, why wasn't James or Joses or Juda or Simon the village carpenter taking over Joseph's carpentry business? Because none of them was the eldest son, most likely. It is not that they would not have been involved perhaps, but they did not appear to be identified with the business as was Joseph and his eldest son Jesus.

[there buster]

Quote:

please show evidence that the years between the writing of those verses and our day changes the meaning of heos.

I'm wondering how many times we have to point out it's not the meaning of heos that changes, but rather what the view of marriage was at the time the verses were written.

That's what changed. So, continually appealing to the "Biblical view" of marriage is nonsense. The Biblical view of marriage was not static. Once again, you are confusing the difference between exegesis, biblical theology, and systematic theology.

You keep appealing to systematic theology, which by its nature continually changes, and which does not correspond directly with biblical theology.

[Dr. Shane]

And you are extra-Biblically imprinting your cultural concepts and tradition onto what Scripture actually says.

[Dr. Shane]

This is what my commentary says but it is not Adventist:

Exodus 22:16

And if a man entice a maid, that is not betrothed

For one might be betrothed according to the custom of those times, and not be married, or the nuptials consummated, and so be yet a maid or virgin; but being betrothed, it made the case different, because such an one was as a wife to a man: but the case here supposed is of a maid not betrothed, and also not forced, but yielding to the solicitations of a man, as is implied by her being enticed; which signifies his gaining upon her affections, and obtaining her consent by expressing strong affection for her, and making large promises to her, and so both by words and gestures prevailing with her to yield to his desire:

and lie with her;

in a way of carnal copulation; and such an action between two single persons, by consent, is what is called simple fornication: if this was done in a field, the maid was supposed to be forced, since there she might cry out, and not be heard; but if in a city, she is supposed to be enticed, and consent, since if she cried out she might be heard; this the Jewish writers gather from (Deuteronomy 22:23-27), though the law there respects a betrothed damsel:

he shall surely endow her to be his wife;

give her a dowry in order to be his wife, or, however, such an one as he would or must give if she became his wife, even one suitable to her rank and dignity, whether he married her or not; for he was not obliged to it whether he would or not, and in some cases could not if he would, as follows.

Exodus 22:17

If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him

For wife, either because of his character, family, or circumstances; or, however, being disagreeable to him on one account or another, and therefore will by no means agree to marry his daughter to him, and not only give him an absolute denial, but resolutely persist in it: the Targum of Jonathan has it,

"if it seems not good to him;"

if he do not like nor choose to marry her; and some add also, if she herself do not approve of marrying him:

he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins;

as virgins on marriage have usually given them, according to their rank and dignity: here is no sum fixed, but the Targum of Jonathan is,

"he shall be mulcted in fifty shekels of silver,"

which is taken from (Deuteronomy 22:29) though that seems to be not altogether a like case with this; for though it respects a virgin not betrothed, as here, yet one that has been forced, and therefore the man was obliged to marry her, and never put her away; and the mulct or fine was to be paid to the damsel's father and not to her: the Septuagint version here says, it was to be paid to the father.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

And you are extra-Biblically imprinting your cultural concepts and tradition onto what Scripture actually says.

Actually this isn't about me or my interpretation of Scripture. I embrace the mainstream, evangelical, Sola Sciptura understanding of Biblical marriage. Rather than using the word "you" in the above passage it would be better to replace it with "evangelical Christian" like thus:

And evangelical Christians are extra-Biblically imprinting their cultural concepts and tradition onto what Scripture actually says.

Oh, get over it, Shane! I was talking to you, about what you said as your view. I wasn't addressing some impersonal movement. And while you may subscribe to and conform to an "evengelical Christian" point of view, that is not how you prefaced it. And you certainly are not a spokes person for "evangelical Christianity", whatever that nebulous phrase means and the very diverse broad cross section of Christianity that it encompasses.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

[Evangelical Christians] are also ignoring the cultural concept that women were mere property that if taken would require restitution or compensation to the one from whom you took the property.

I don't think that mainstream Christian theology ignores that at all.

No, but you certainly seemed to be ignoring it. And, Shane, you are who I was talking to.

Originally Posted By: Shane

That is certainly Biblical. The fact that women were mere property does not support the far-reaching, extra-Biblical theology that sex = marriage.

Well, it is far-reaching (clear back to creation and Genesis, ie the begining...) but it is most certainly very much Biblical. Perhaps it would be less troublesome to you if I had rather stated that the original concept of marriage (think Adam and Eve and the early patriarchs) did not involve a formal wedding ceremony, marriage certificate or process for formal recognition. It was simply, find and take a woman and make her your wife. The extent of the formality was doing it peacefully (Although not always the case) with the blessing of her family (again not always the case or required) and some family celebration (and again not always the case - read about Isaac's "wedding" to Rebbecca). The dowry was customary, but it did not formalize or bind the couple together, and was not a part of God's plan or recognition of the couple being married. It simply compensated the woman's family for its loss. (I think God doesn't favor buying and selling people...)

When you peel away all those cultural customs and go back to the creation story of Adam and Eve and what Jesus said about marriage, there is not much left to distinguish this relationship from any other familial or other human relationship. The difference was that this man and this woman have a special physical bond that no other human relationship was to have. And that was sex. Once that happened they were husband and wife. If a man and woman live together without ever having had sex, what kind of relationship is that? If sex was not required, two heterosexual women could live together and say they are married. Why doesn't that work?

Why is all this so hard to understand and accept? Why are we so uncomfortable with sex? And why are we trying to separate it from marriage? What human sexual act does God sanction as OK outside of marriage? Why does he think it so important that he made any sex outside of marriage a sin punishable by death?

You can call me, "Tom". Or you can call me, "Hey you!" But don't call me late for dinner.

[Dr. Shane]

while you may subscribe to and conform to an "evengelical Christian" point of view, that is not how you prefaced it. And you certainly are not a spokes person for "evangelical Christianity"

[Dr. Shane]

From an earlier post:

Like I said, I don't have an Adventist Bible commentary but I doubt that is what it says. What I have stated is way beyond being my thoughts or my beliefs. It represents evangelical thoughts and evangelical beliefs. What I have been saying is mainstream Christian understanding of Scripture.

[Dr. Shane]

Another quote from an earlier post:

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.

[Dr. Shane]

Another quote from an earlier post:

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.

While there may be "scores" of commentaries that agree, I have only read four or five so that statement may be a bit of an exaggeration on my part.