# Betrothal?



## Philip (Apr 9, 2011)

Ok, so I've come across this guy on the web and it's been bugging me: The Covenant of Betrothal. Is this a Scriptural position or is it, as I suspect, binding the consciences of believers where Scripture does not? Specifically, he's arguing that arranged marriage is the Christian way. I really feel like he's proof-texting for a system.

Oh, and did I mention that he also thinks that if you are a 17-year-old male and not married or "betrothed" by your father, you are in sin?


----------



## Andres (Apr 9, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Oh, and did I mention that he also thinks that if you are a 17-year-old male and not married or "betrothed" by your father, you are in sin?



I didn't even look at the website. All you have to share with me is the above and I can already tell you the guy is off in his conclusions.


----------



## Philip (Apr 9, 2011)

The thing is, he's claiming that it's the result of good scriptural reasoning. My only consolation in our exchanges has been that his reading of Calvin/Henry/Gill is clearly out there.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2011)

P. F. Pugh,

Simply saying that you are using "good scriptural reasoning" does not mean that you are. Once you put forward and argument from scripture, the other person has the right to criticize the argument. It is only when the argument is shown to have exegetical sticking power that it can be accepted as "good scriptural reasoning."

The problem with this person's arguments is that they are looking for a pattern in scripture without understanding the context that the Bible itself gives for the passages he is quoting. For example, take the following statements:

1. We killed them.

2. They were black and blue and crying when we got done with them.

3. We crushed them.

Now, if such statements were taken just as they are here, one might think that the pattern is violence. However, what if #1 and #3 were found in the context of a Basketball tournament? What if, in addition to this, #2 was found in the context of the quotation of gangsters who had gotten caught be the police, and were sentenced to twenty years in prison? Sorta changes the pattern.

You can come up with any kind of pattern you want if you are willing to ignore the immediate context. A clear example of this is when he tries to compare Issac and Rebekah with Jacob and Rachel. Contextually, this is impossible. The story of Isaac and Rebekah relates to the promise of God, and Abraham getting along in years [24:1, 7]. Also, it is related to the fact that Abraham does not want his servant to take a wife from his son from the Canaanites [24:3]. Hence, the issue is patriarchal succession in the face of Abraham's old age, and not any kind of pattern for how one must conduct relationships.

Also, to contrast that with Jacob and Rachel is, again, exegetically fallacious. There is the entire story of Jacob and Esau intervening. The point of the story of Jacob and Rachel is an irony between the cheating and sly ways of Jacob with Esau, and the cheating and lying ways of Laban with Jacob. The point is, Jacob sows lies and cheating, and Jacob reaps lies and cheating.

Also, it is entirely tenuous to argue that, since there is no wooing or pursuit in Genesis 2:18 that, somehow, those things are wrong. Again, context is the key. Eve was made especially for Adam long before the fall [Genesis 2:18]. Hence, the idea that he wouldn't be interested in her or she wouldn't be interested in him is preposterous.

I did not read the whole article; when you see mistakes like this made in only the first three scriptures addressed, it doesn't give you confidence in the person's exegetical abilities. However, the pattern for refuting him is the same; allow the scriptures themselves to tell you the message of the narrative by looking at how the narrative progresses from one story to the next. Allow *the text itself* to define what the message of the narrative is.

All this reminds me of Perchik from _The Fiddler on the Roof_ who taught the children that story of Jacob and Laban meant that the Bible teaches us to never trust our employers. If you don't allow the text itself to define what the message of the narrative is, you can make narratives mean almost anything you want them to mean.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 13, 2011)

Interpret scripture with scripture. Look for yourself at the relevant passages. Beyond that, if you want to follow cultural traditions, than do so within Christian liberty.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 13, 2011)

There's no need for believers to throw out all the customs of their culture (like how marriages get set up) and try to replace them with some supposed biblical standard that's actually only the cultural standard of Bible times. In this case the Bible gives no clear instruction commanding, "This is how to get marriages set up no matter what your culture says." We don't become more godly by merely copying the culture of Bible times or the actions of characters who were largely just following their own cultural norms.


----------



## Philip (Apr 13, 2011)

Jack K said:


> There's no need for believers to throw out all the customs of their culture (like how marriages get set up) and try to replace them with some supposed biblical standard that's actually only the cultural standard of Bible times.



I understand this, but in my interactions with this gentleman, he has consistently claimed that whatever practice you follow in this regard needs Scriptural warrant (read: precedent, proof-texting). It's frustrating arguing on those lines.


----------



## Hebrew Student (Apr 13, 2011)

P. F. Pugh



> I understand this, but in my interactions with this gentleman, he has consistently claimed that whatever practice you follow in this regard needs Scriptural warrant (read: precedent, proof-texting). It's frustrating arguing on those lines.



When I read his paper, I realized that he has a faulty view of Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible will not tell you how to put on your shoes in the morning, or how to make pancakes, or how to draw Phrase Structure trees. Sola Scriptura is simply the teaching that the Bible is sufficient _to function as the *Regula Fide*, the rule of faith for the church_. In other words, the Bible *regulates* what we do, it does not tell us everything to do.

For example, a chemist does not have any explicit instructions on precisely how he is to set up and measure the condensation in his experiments in the Bible, but the Bible does tell him that he can expect that there is uniformity within nature [Genesis 8:22], because there is a sovereign God who works all things after the council of his will [Ephesians 1:11], and keeps his promises [Titus 1:2], and thus, he is able to approach his experiments expecting to find uniformity. However, it would be ridiculous for someone to demand that anyone find in the Bible a particular method for setting up and measuring condensation in a Chemistry experiment.

In the same way, the Bible does not give us specific models we must follow to get from singleness to marriage. The Bible does, however, *regulate* how we do this. It teaches us about love, and about how we are to relate to one another. Thus, any cultural practices that contradict the Bible's explicit teaching in these areas must be abandoned. However, to demand that the Bible tell us everything to do in a relationship is completely irrational.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## Philip (Apr 13, 2011)

Yes, I suppose I'd just better quit arguing the point with him. No sense arguing when you can't agree on interpretation.


----------



## Jack K (Apr 13, 2011)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Jack K said:
> 
> 
> > There's no need for believers to throw out all the customs of their culture (like how marriages get set up) and try to replace them with some supposed biblical standard that's actually only the cultural standard of Bible times.
> ...



Yeah. That's frustrating all right.


----------

