The Church, the State and marriage

[Dr. Shane]

Another quote from an earlier post:

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.

[Dr. Shane]

Another quote from an earlier post:

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

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

And it is a good translation. It reads the same in Spanish.

[Dr. Shane]

Another quote from an earlier post:

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.

[Dr. Shane]

while you may subscribe to and conform to an "evengelical Christian" point of view, that is not how you prefaced it.

I think I have clearly demonstrated that the above statement is wrong.

[Tom Wetmore]

You have proven nothing save that you can waste time (and bandwidth) and needlessly make a mountain out of a molehill.

First of all, I wasn't responding to any of those excerpts of your earlier posting. What precipitated this was the following post:

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

...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.

This is what we call extra-biblical doctrine because it is a belief arrived at outside of the Scriptures. The Scriptures clearly teach that in order for a marriage to take place there had to be the father's consent and a dowry paid.

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

that is why... a man taking the virgin was required to keep her as his wife.

If having sex with a virgin made her that man's wife there would be no need for a law requiring the man to later secure permission from the virgin's father and pay him a dowry.

Hmmm... let's see, I don't see any of the "evangelical Christian" spokes-person prefacing the one to which I was directly responding.

But so what! I really don't care that you think I am outside of "evangelical Christianity" as you define it. And since you are the one that is posting in your own words, I am talking to you. It's not personal. I am just addressing a point you made.

Anyway...

[Guest]

So what are you trying to say Tom?

You're plenty evangelical in my book.

[Tom Wetmore]

It seems closer to gay theology than Sola Scriptura.

Explain this. It makes no sense to me. How is anything I have suggested here even remotely like gay theology!?!?

Originally Posted By: Shane

Now if the Adventist commentary says something different than that will certainly give me pause. I have read four or five different Protestant Bible commentaries and they are all consistent with the John Gills commentary.

Try thinking for yourself. Take just Scripture and let it speak for itself and then think about it.

Quote:

Every human being, created in the image of God, is endowed with a power akin to that of the Creator-- individuality, power to think and to do. The men in whom this power is developed are the men who bear responsibilities, who are leaders in enterprise, and who influence character. It is the work of true education to develop this power, to train the youth to be thinkers, and not mere reflectors of other men's thought. Instead of confining their study to that which men have said or written, let students be directed to the sources of truth, to the vast fields opened for research in nature and revelation. Let them contemplate the great facts of duty and destiny, and the mind will expand and strengthen.

18

Instead of educated weaklings, institutions of learning may send forth men strong to think and to act, men who are masters and not slaves of circumstances, men who possess breadth of mind, clearness of thought, and the courage of their convictions. - Education pp 17-18. (emphasis added)

[Guest]

Nice quote Tom. We should think for ourselves.

[Dr. Shane]

First of all, I wasn't responding to any of those excerpts of your earlier posting.

This is a conversation we are having. One cannot honestly participate in it by ignoring earlier remarks made by another member in the same thread in the same topic. Those remarks provide context. To ignore context is to be dishonest with other participants and with lurkers.

[Dr. Shane]

Originally Posted By: Shane

It seems closer to gay theology than Sola Scriptura.

Explain this. It makes no sense to me. How is anything I have suggested here even remotely like gay theology!?!?

[Dr. Shane]

Try thinking for yourself. Take just Scripture and let it speak for itself and then think about it.

Of course each of us needs to read the Scripture for ourselves and through prayer allow the Holy Spirit to lead us. However that is not to say we ignore what other students of the Bible have observed and written.

I have been placing your beliefs in context. Stan started this thread by saying he is inclined to believe as you. Ed came in and backed you up as if what you are teaching is as solid as the seventh-day Sabbath. I have been pointing out that is simply not true. What you are teaching is a radical departure from mainstream Protestantism. If you want to present your teachings under the cloak of "new light" that is fine but to try and present them as some solid Biblical teaching is dishonest when so much of Protestantism disagrees with you.

[Dr. Shane]

Again, let's look at some Bible commentary and show what Christian thought is on this. Instead of shooting off high-minded theories let's back it up with Protestant thought. Proverbs says that in the multitude of counselors there is safety. I have asked for anyone with an Adventist commentary to share what it says about Exodus 22 and no one has shared that yet. Once we establish what Christian thought is on this topic, then we can discuss whether or not the Christian world is wrong and Tom and Ed are right. If we find that Christian thought is indeed in line with Tom and Ed, I am not so stubborn that I will not reconsider the issue. If the Adventist commentary is different than other Bible commentaries I have read, that will certainly give me pause. Let's find some Bible commentaries published by mainstream Protestant denominations.

[Gregory Matthews]

Shane said:

Quote:

This is a conversation we are having. One cannot honestly participate in it by ignoring earlier remarks made by another member in the same thread in the same topic. Those remarks provide context. To ignore context is to be dishonest with other participants and with lurkers.

A group can have a conversation in which one person addresses the comments of another individual. That happens regularly in group conversations.

It is not dishonest to address a comment of one person and ignore all others. I participate in a Sabbath School Class that has free-ranging discusisons. People regularly do that.

In such asituation it commonly becomes quite confusing to fail to identify the person addressed. It is the greater part of clairty, and honesty to identify the individual addressed.

To be clear Shane: I am speaking to you and your comment cited above. I am not addressing the many other comments made by other people. I am addressing your comment.

Shane, this does not make me dishonest.

[Dr. Shane]

But Gregory, you're not even addressing the topic of this thread. Now if you were addressing a comment I made in regard to the topic of the thread and taking me out of context, that would be dishonest. That is what Tom did.

All through this thread I have made the point that Tom's belief in marriage is not consistent with mainstream Protestantism. For him to pretend that he simply is disagreeing with me is dishonest. He is not just disagreeing with me. He is disagreeing with a general consensus within Protestantism. To pretend this is about a disagreement between two believers is simply dishonest.

[Dr. Shane]

Moreover, I must add, I have said that I am willing to reconsider my position if it can be shown to me that the Adventist commentary disagrees with other Protestant commentaries. I have effectively removed myself as part of the discussion. The discussion is about what Protestants believe verses what Tom believes.

[phkrause]

Shane here is the Jewish Rabbi Rashis' commentary on Exodus 22:15-16 (for some reason the christian bibles have its as verses' 16-17):

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

Rashi's commentary:

If a man seduces: Heb. יְפַךְתֶּה, he speaks to her heart until she yields to him. And so is its Aramaic translation: וַאִרֵי יְשַׁדֵּל. שִׁדּוּל in Aramaic is the equivalent of פִּךְתּוּי in Hebrew [and both signify persuasion].

he shall provide her with a marriage contract: He shall stipulate for her a dowry, as is the custom of a man to his wife, that he writes for her a kethubah, and he shall marry her. -[From Mechilta]

16. If her father refuses to give her to him [in marriage], he shall weigh out money according to the dowry of the virgins.

Rahsi's commentary

according to the dowry of the virgins: which is fixed at fifty silver shekels in the case of one who seizes a virgin and forcibly lies with her, as it is said: “The man who lay with her shall give the maiden’s father fifty silver shekels” (Deut. 22:29). -[From Keth. 10a]

(Not sure how the Hebrew or the Aramaic will come through, they look OK in the preview section) The other Jewish Bible I have which was translated also from hebrew to english by a Jewish man "Dr. David Stern" a Jew living in Israel, reads pretty much the same. His Bible is for Jews and Christians alike and his is the OT & NT whereas Rashi's Tanach is only the OT, he doesn't except the NT. Hope this helps a little bit. As far as the SDA Bible commentary about Verses 16 and 17 it says: are concerned with seduction. In the East a man commonly pays money, a dowry, to the parents of the maiden he intends to marry. A seducer was required to comply with this custom. The dowry price was 50 shekels of silver (deut. 22.29), or about $14.57.

pk

[Dr. Shane]

It looks like that commentary does not address the part of verse 16 that says "and lie with her".

The verse has three parts:

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

This shows the act is not one of rape.

"and lie with her"

Here is the part this thread is focused on. Was lying with her sinful? Was it fornication? Or was it an act of marriage in God's eyes? John Gill's commentary says "...carnal copulation; and such an action between two single persons, by consent, is what is called simple fornication..."

"he shall surely endow her to be his wife"

This portion of the verse clearly is saying he must marry her. I think the liberal view would say this is simply saying that after having sex (marriage in God's eyes) they have to follow through with the civil obligations.

Then we go to the next verse. It has two parts:

"If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him"

This seems to say the father can refuse her hand in marriage. Since Jesus said that no man is to put asunder what God has joined together, it seems hard to believe that sex married the two (in the eyes of God) and then God allows the father to separate them. The John Gill's commentary actually says "some add also, if she herself do not approve of marrying him" That indicates that even after having sex with the man the girl is not obligated to marry him. If sex was marriage in the eyes of God, why would the girl have the right to not marry the man later?

To mainstream Protestantism the passage seems to say a man that takes a girl's virginity is obligated to marry her. However either the girl or her father can refuse her hand in marriage to him. The only one that is obligated to the marriage is the man that took the girl's virginity. And he must pay the marriage dowry even if denied her hand in marriage.

It looks like Rashi's commentary is consistent with John Gill's commentary but not as extensive.

[GreatLakesGramma]

I have not been following this thread, but decided to take a look at the last page this morning, to see where it has led up to this point. I see that Shane wants to see what the SDA Bible Commentary says in Exodus. The verses you are discussing are 16 & 17, right?

The SDA commentary on those verses is very brief, and does not even address the issue in question in this thread:

Quote:

Verses 16 and 17 are concerned with seduction. In the East a man commonly pays money, a dowry, to the parents of the maiden he intends to marry. A seducer was required to comply with this custom. The dowry price was 50 shekels of silver, (Deut. 22:29), or about $14.57.

[Tom Wetmore]

That is because the SDA Bible Commentators didn't like to discuss s-e-x...

:smilewink:

But seriously, (and to humor my friend Shane) the Christian church (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical, Fundametalist... or whatever...) across the whole spectrum throughout its entire history (now that is a sweeping as I can get off the top of my empty head...) has done a rather poor job of dealing with sex and marriage. (And I would suggest that Jewish history and tradition fairs no better...) Currently the rates among Christians of premarital sex, unwed pregnancy, divorce, serial polygamy ("legal" multiple partners either premarital or by divorce and remarriage), sexual perversions of all types, sexual dysfunctional, marital problems, use of pornography, masturbation, etc. are no better, and in many categories worse, than the rest of the population.

Just maybe we need to rethink our perspective and try to get back to basics and try to discover what God actually and originally intended. That is all I am trying to do. Just maybe the traditional way of looking at the topic, as reflected in all those less than helpful Bible commentaries, misses the point and the mark entirely.

Why is it so difficult for some people to think outside the box? Is there not an original thought possible? Or permissible?

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

Explain this. It makes no sense to me. How is anything I have suggested here even remotely like gay theology!?!?

I have explained it once already but will post it again.

Originally Posted By: Shane

Originally Posted By: John317

Exodus 22: 16 says' date=' "... he must pay the bride-price for her to be his wife" (REB).

Any good Bible dictionary will show that there was more to getting married and making a woman one's wife than having sex with her.

Of course. In order to read it any other way one has to first decide to believe something different. Then go to the Bible and read into it the preconceived doctrine. This is exactly how gay doctrine is arrived at.

"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." (Romans 1:26, 27)

Gay theology will point out the word I have underlined. They believe the word "natural" indicates these verses are talking about heterosexuals committing homosexual acts. According to gay theology it is "natural" for homosexuals to have gay sex so that is not sinful. However it is unnatural for heterosexuals to have gay sex so that is sinful. That kind of logic has to be arrived at before reading the text. The text itself will not lean anyone to that conclusion.

And so it is with Exodus 22:15, 16. The verses clearly teach that a marriage requires the father's consent and dowry. Without the father's consent or the dowry, there is no marriage. [/quote']

It did not make sense when you first stated it and it still doesn't.

You, Shane, seem to be the one approaching this whole topic with "preconceived doctrine", either your own or that of others. And that is precisely where you have gone wrong about me and my approach. You have some preconceived notion about what I have said (Uhh it's like gay theology...) and then proceed off in that wrong-headed direction to prove your point. I am the one that has stripped away all preconceived ideas, setting aside traditional Biblical commentary, and have attempted a fresh new look at just what Scripture says and have tried to rediscover what the original writers meant within their time and cultural context. This is my typically approach to many subjects, and it is always the traditionalists with the vast weight of many preconceived ideas and doctrines of their own and generations of others that most agressively resist entertaining a new thought. And this topic reinforces that experience resoundingly.

[CyberGuy]

Tom

Where the bible is silent on or not clear on Ellen White makes it more clear about sex.

1. Sex is only to be in the confines of marriage between a man and a woman.

2. Homosexuality is not to be tolerated within the church.

3. Pre marital sex is not to be approved of.

4. Being married to more than one person at a time is not what God originally intended and when violated by old testament characters only brought heartache and misery and discord.

Look at Abram and his Egyptian concubine Haggar. It only brought dicontent and jealousy in the house. Same for Jacob. Only Issac who only had one wife had marital peace. True his two sons did not get along but there was no marital strife.

In China the symbol for happiness is a man and a woman in a house.

The symbol for noise is two woman and man under one roof.

The symbol for trouble is three woman and a man under one roof.

[Woody]

Quote:

You, Shane, seem to be the one approaching this whole topic with "preconceived doctrine", either your own or that of others. And that is precisely where you have gone wrong about me and my approach. You have some preconceived notion about what I have said (Uhh it's like gay theology...) and then proceed off in that wrong-headed direction to prove your point. I am the one that has stripped away all preconceived ideas, setting aside traditional Biblical commentary, and have attempted a fresh new look at just Scripture says and have tried to rediscover what the original writers meant within their time and cultural context.

I can appreciate your comment Tom.

I think all too often .... we can get stuck in the mud with preconceived ideas just because they are the old traditional ideas. But, they just may not be the ideas of God. We do need to open our minds to Truth.

[Tom Wetmore]

...In China the symbol for happiness is a man and a woman in a house.

The symbol for noise is two woman and man under one roof.

The symbol for trouble is three woman and a man under one roof.

Truly inspired!

And who says Eastern philosphy is contrary to the Biblical Truth...

[Dr. Shane]

Currently the rates among Christians of premarital sex, unwed pregnancy, divorce, serial polygamy ("legal" multiple partners either premarital or by divorce and remarriage), sexual perversions of all types, sexual dysfunctional, marital problems, use of pornography, masturbation, etc. are no better, and in many categories worse, than the rest of the population.

This is true and one of the reasons we need to be more willing to discuss topics like this. However what normally happens is that someone complains to Stan and these discussions get moved off to a private forum because we don't want to make waves.

[phkrause]

And Cyberguy don't forget King's David and Solomon. They were great but didn't have marital bliss to speak of.

pk