# Biblical Marriage



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 16, 2005)

You could say I have been thinking of the subject of marriage recently and this can be seen in many of my posts about it. I suppose you could say it is a hot topic at the moment with my country passing new marriage laws etc... and a sermon I have heard about it. I suppose also this has got me thinking about what I actually believe and people ask that alot seeing as I am Christian and actually believe something (go figure). Everyone wants my opinion on things but they dont want me to believe anything lol.

Anyway this scenario is very real (as a possibility) but I do not know of it happening to anyone near me. The scenario: a Christian man falls into sin and has unbiblical relations with an unbeliever he is not married to. As a result of this union the woman becomes pregnant. This man at some point repents and is convicted of this sin. Yet upon hearing he is going to be a father what should he do? Under normal circumstances I guess it is wrong for a believer to marry an unbeliever BUT is it better for this man to marry the woman and be a propper father to this child than walk out of their lives and have nothing to do with it (except maybe pay support). Would it be more biblical for this man to marry the woman, restore their families honour and take responcibility for their iniquity?


----------



## strictestsect (Feb 16, 2005)

Never thought about that but I will say that there is no indication of children entering in the discourse of our Lord in respect to Divorce and remarriage if you can follow my train of thought.

What I’m saying is when divorce is biblical, the welfare of children is not considered. Therefore, based on the information given, I would not encourage marriage in this situation. 

And I also will not entertain the thought of the man marrying anyone else until his child is at least 18. He does'nt have to walk out of the life of his child. In fact I would say that the child is his 'life'. Sound tough? What else are we supposed to expect from sin.





[Edited on 16-2-2005 by strictestsect]


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 16, 2005)

I see your point.

"Sound tough? What else are we supposed to expect from sin." I like that point. So many people expect to not have any after effects of sin simply because they are forgiven.

I was also not just thinking about the welfare of children. I would have to search through the laws of Moses to find all the evidence but I was wondering if the fact the man has 'defiled' the woman means he has some responcibilty towards her also. Although that sounds stupid in the light of todays society 

Of course there is the whole assumption behind all this that both of them have some form of feelings for each other and actually do get along fine...


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

Under Biblical law, if a guy gets a woman pregnant, and she's not married or engaged, he has two choices, either pay a fine or marry her. And if the child isn't born in wedlock, the child is a bastard without many civil rights, so there is the strong implication that if he cares anything at all about his children he should marry her.

If she's willing, it would be the mark of a irresponsible cad to not marry her.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Under Biblical law, if a guy gets a woman pregnant, and she's not married or engaged, he has two choices, either pay a fine or marry her. And if the child isn't born in wedlock, the child is a bastard without many civil rights, so there is the strong implication that if he cares anything at all about his children he should marry her.
> 
> If she's willing, it would be the mark of a irresponsible cad to not marry her.


Nicely worded. These are more along my lines of thought.


----------



## satz (Feb 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Abd_Yesua_alMasih_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by TimV_
> ...



While i agree with the logic here, in the NT isn't it forbidden to marry an unbeliever? I think in 1 Cor 7? I too am unsure how to deal with a situation such as this...I know that socially speaking marrying her is the jsut thing to do..but if we are forbidden from marrying unbelievers, does sinning again make things right?

I can vaguely recall this topic having been done before...i am sure someone will tell us to look up some old thread soon...


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

Not really. Like much in the Bible, you have to take things in a broader context. Those who say 'Thou shalt not kill" are wrong in saying this outlaws the death penalty.

If it's always a sin to marry an unbeliever, then if the two unbelievers marry, and the woman later converts, should she divorce him? Paul is clear, that it depends on the circumstance. She has an option.


----------



## satz (Feb 16, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Not really. Like much in the Bible, you have to take things in a broader context. Those who say 'Thou shalt not kill" are wrong in saying this outlaws the death penalty.
> 
> If it's always a sin to marry an unbeliever, then if the two unbelievers marry, and the woman later converts, should she divorce him? Paul is clear, that it depends on the circumstance. She has an option.



Tim, you are right, but i think the situation posted is slightly different?

In the example you give, the marriage has already been entered into. Paul says it would be wrong to divorce simply because of conversion. In the situation in the OP, there is no marriage yet. Well, like i said i haven't studied this deeply, you could well be right, i just don't think we can apply the logic from your case directly.


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

I think it is a part. 

I've long thought the examples of Ruth and Orphah marrying Mahlon and Chilion are good starting points.

When Naiomi's sons married Ruth and Orphah they sinned. Why? Because it was illegal to marry Moabites. But, even though it was illegal to marry Moabits, Ruth was still considered Naiomi's daughter.

How does that work? Well, marriage isn't the act of living together, marriage is an oath. The oaths the two men took were illegal, but still binding weren't they?

The only conclusion I can see it that the oath was in the case of Ruth illegal, but there is plenty of evidence in the Bible that in many cases even an illegal oath, once made, is binding. So that puts Ruth in the clear, and Boaz didn't sin by marrying a Moabite, since her illegal oath still in effect made her an Israelite woman.

We know from the NT that under certian circumstances remarriages are illegal. I doubt anyone here would disagree with that. But if two people who have been married multiple times convert later in life, and want to join your church will you let them? Do you consider them living in sin because their marriages were illegal? Or are there provisions in the Bible for moving on with things?

Sin compicates things, and there are provisions in the Bible for this.

I guess we could go on all day about the theory behind the story, but the bottom line is that guy is given his choice under Biblical law, and tremendous pressure is put on the woman to be married to someone before the baby is born.

For centuries here in the West the proper course of action is for the Christian guy to marry her, as he's considered the guilty party as long as the girl isn't married or engaged.

There is no reason why our traditions should be thrown out the window unless there is clear scriptual evidence that the tradition is wrong. 

I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight or something!

Very best


----------



## satz (Feb 16, 2005)

> I hope I don't sound like I'm picking a fight or something!



Not at all!

I will probably have to think it though a little before i reply...don't want to go shooting my mouth off...

Maybe by then someone else would have chimed in?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 16, 2005)

Let me just address some things mentioned above. Some good things and some erroneous things have been said. And at the end, something on the original scenario.

Mahlon and Chillion sinned in taking foreign wives. These were illegal marriages. They were _real_ marriages. However, to be obedient, they should have divorced Ruth and Orpha (see Ezra 9, 10, 11). That is, unless it were clear that these women had "become Israelites" rather than remaining Moabites. (By the way, it would be a "visible" thing for a man to become an Israelite--circumcision as well as profession; a woman could only profess the faith). Orpha clearly had not, but Ruth evidently had, at least by the time she commits to remaining with Naomi. Her declaration of faith in chapter 1 marks a moment of _conversion_ for her. Ruth is adopted by Naomi. This is what truly incorporates her into the nation. And thus Boaz is not sinning in marrying her. 

As a side note, genuinely illegal (sinful) oaths are not to be kept. We cannot bind ourselves to commit known sin. Marriage, however, is _more than_ simply an oath. It describes a state of affairs as well as an act or event. Marriage involves oath, but it is more--it is a covenant of companionship. Oh, and NO, contrary to an above sentiment it is not a circumstantial matter whether a convert may divorce an unbelieving spouse. Paul plainly states twice, using two different illustrations (1 Cor. 7:20, 24), "Each one must remain in that condition in which he was called." His comments earlier in the passage deal with separations only.

As to the original scenario: There are additional factors that have to be brought into the equation in order to have the maximum information so that the right biblical decision can be made (some have been mentioned already). In what status are the two as individuals? Does their relationship already qualify as a "common-law" marriage? Is she married to someone else? Is she under her father's control? How old is the woman/girl? Is the man an adult? Is the woman willing to become a believer, or be taught the faith? There may be more issues.

Some principles to keep in mind: 
--A Christian may not marry an unbeliever. I don't see a more fundamental issue than this one, given the scenario. "Common-law" marriage may be an issue in the case, i.e. even without a ceremony, legally they are considered a married couple.
--At the least he owes some degree of care to both mother and child, greater or less depending on their circumstances.
--He owes his child to attempt to rear him in the true faith.
--Never assume God cannot bring wonderful results from seemingly awful or tragic circumstances. He can do greater than we ask or think. We just need to seek his solutions in the Bible, and his face in prayer.

The most ideal resolution would be that the two marry _in the Lord,_ provided that is an option. If not, the father must ensure that (somehow) his child will be provided for. I do not agree with the above mentioned view that the father should remain unmarried (to another) until his child is 18. There is no biblical standard that establishes such a stipulation. It is simply arbitrary. His freedom to marry must be established on other (only biblical) grounds.

Please continue discussing, and asking questions...


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

I'm off to work now, and will address the rest of your post later, but for now, I think you are forgetting the specific prohabition concerning Moab and Ammon. I should have been clearer.

In these two cases it was illegal to marry them under any circumstances due to their background, specifically their incestuous ancestry.

They were singled out. Others, the case law example being Egyptians, could be married after living in the land for 3 generations.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 16, 2005)

Deut. 23:3 & 4 explains very clearly the exclusion of the Moabite (and Ammonite) from the religious convocations of the people. It was a punishment for their treatment of the people on their way into the land. It had nothing whatever to do with their incestous ancestry.

It is also clear from the passage that what is being referred to is exclusion from the corporate gatherings for Tabernacle/Temple worship. The passage begins with a prohibition of a eunuch from entry. Could no eunuch ever be an Israelite? If so then I guess Daniel and his three friends could not be Israelites. But that is preposterous. God even promises the eunuch full inclusion in the New Covenant age (Is. 56:5). No man of faith, regardless of his physical condition, would ever be turned away from identifying with God's people. He did suffer limitations, however, on his participation under the Old Covenant administration.

So, even if one interprets the passage as a forever prohibition from the Tabernacle/Temple (and not merely a sybolic ten-generation exclusion, to be lifted after 200-400 years of a family's inclusion in the nation's life, before a direct-line, male decendant could enter the Temple) it still says nothing pertinent about a Moabite professing faith in the one true God, or being incorporated into the nation.

Note also verse 2 of ch. 23. It speaks _in the same 10-generation language_ of illegitimacy. David the king is specially noted as far as his geaneology is concerned to be a full 10 generations removed from the illegitimacy of Judah and Tamar's relations. Thus he and his decendants (including Jesus Christ) were not barred from the Temple service, even on technical grounds.


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

Taking the points at a time

"Mahlon and Chillion sinned in taking foreign wives. These were illegal marriages. They were real marriages. However, to be obedient, they should have divorced Ruth and Orpha (see Ezra 9, 10, 11). "

No, that would be working backwards. Good and evil aren't absolute, something is good or bad simply because God says it is. Abraham married his half sister, and it was fine, although later it became wrong, simply because God said so. Moses married outside the race as well, but that was fine. Something that Ezra said to a certain group of people at a certain time for a particular reason can't be used to condemn something that someone else did hundreds of year before. It's the same in many NT passages where certain groups of people at certain times were, for example, told to hold there property in community.

I maintian that Ruth's marriage was illegal, but once the vow had been made it was binding.


----------



## TimV (Feb 16, 2005)

First, I must say that I am favorably impressed with the quality of the posts I've seen from you, and please keep my respect in mind if we discuss further.

In addition to my last post, you said

"As a side note, genuinely illegal (sinful) oaths are not to be kept. We cannot bind ourselves to commit known sin."

I think that is simplistic, although in general an important point. However "A wise man swears to his own hurt, and does not change" is also a Biblical principle.

I think clearly the optimum scenario is for two virgin Christians to get married, stay faithful, and have lots of kids. By God's grace this had been the case of my wife and I, and for almost 20 years.

But as I said, sin complicates things, and there are passages that can be used, I think, with wisdom, to justify marrying an unbeliever under those aformentioned circumstances. For example, when Paul talks about a believing spouse sanctifying an unbelieving spouse.


----------



## strictestsect (Feb 16, 2005)

I do understand why you disagree with me about staying unmarried until the child can care for him/her self.

As you could probably figure out my reasons for that idea is found in this: the man only complicates his circumstance. What I see compromised is not only the child’s well being (assuming the Mother has physical custody) but the well being of the man’s new family.

When he brings in a wife, by a biblical alternative, she now deserves his undivided attention. That is were I see the compromise.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 16, 2005)

Hello Tim (and welcome to the PB),
I hope you get to like this place as much as the rest of us. We won't always agree, but when we love God's Word it ties us together like nothing else can. I've learned plenty on this board. So, on to interaction...



> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Taking the points at a time
> 
> "Mahlon and Chillion sinned in taking foreign wives. These were illegal marriages. They were real marriages. However, to be obedient, they should have divorced Ruth and Orpha (see Ezra 9, 10, 11). "
> ...


True, it was illegal, and because God had declared it _in the Law of Moses._ They were to be separate from the people of the Land and from the surrounding nations. The "particular reason" you refer to was this very legal passage (Deut. 23) that Nehemiah, Ezra's contemporary, appeals to (Neh. 13) as determinative of the necessity of the divorces. As I've argued elsewhere on the PB, even in Nehemiah's and Ezra's day the issue was returning to a legal (obedient) state. Remaining in an illegal state was not an option, but I submit divorce was not the only remedy--evidence of conversion would have significantly remedied a bad situation.

The matter of closer marriages in earlier times is true, as far as it goes. But Abraham was not under Mosaic Law, marrying several hundred years prior to its promulgation. To be precise, good (and evil by comparison) is both absolute (being often a moral reflection of God _himself,_ his unchanging character), and conditional (when it is _positive,_ meaning related to simple commands which may change). The Mosaic Law was a yoke borne by Israel for about 1500 uninterrupted years, until the expiration of the nation and the end of the Old Covenant.

I'm not saying that in every scenario without exception Mahlon and Chilion should have divorced their wives, but that without the kind of cataclysmic sundering of ties that Ruth evidences in returning with Naomi to Israel, the sons could not have returned to Israel without suffering reproach themselves and bringing the nation further under divine judgment (Ex. 34:15, 16; Deut. 7:3; cf. Josh 23:12-13). This is all beside the point that what was applicable to the nation of Israel in their unique place in redemptive history is not necessarily applicable today.

You also wrote:


> "As a side note, genuinely illegal (sinful) oaths are not to be kept. We cannot bind ourselves to commit known sin."
> 
> I think that is simplistic, although in general an important point. However "A wise man swears to his own hurt, and does not change" is also a Biblical principle.


I fully support the last scriptural point. But in no way contrary to mine above it. "Swearing to one's own hurt" is the same thing as keeping your word in all things lawful, and not justifying weaseling out of a circumstance because now you look to be at a disadvantage because of a promise you made. "Swearing to one's hurt" means telling the truth, even if it means you have to pay a price, or be found guilty. "Swearing to one's hurt" means keeping one's obligations even when it is financially or socially difficult.

In conformity to this last illustration, I think you have in mind the obligation of the man (in our scenario) to fulfill his duties to woman and child. And I agree, insofar as he stays within the revealed will of God in the Word. For example--he can't rob a bank and give the money to them; that's providing, but not in a permissible way. Wisdom is definitely required in this type of situation. Perhaps we need additional information about the case, or more careful study of the Word to get to an answer we fully agree on.

In any case, I appreciate the stimulation to thought. Thanks Tim.


----------



## andreas (Feb 17, 2005)

*** I would have to search through the laws of Moses to find all the evidence***

You mean the law of God,not Moses law.
andreas.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by andreas_
> *** I would have to search through the laws of Moses to find all the evidence***
> 
> You mean the law of God,not Moses law.
> andreas.


Just to let you know I paused before writing that and wondered what I should put down... my old thinking won over and it is what others call it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 17, 2005)

We don't need to get into a semantic debate here. Both "Law of God" and "Law of Moses" are biblical terminology, verbatim Scripture. The former is a broader expression which could refer to simply the same body of law that Moses received, or fuller to include larger units or even all of Scripture. When one speaks of "Moses' Law" the portion of Scripture being referred to is unambiguous.


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2005)

"The matter of closer marriages in earlier times is true, as far as it goes. But Abraham was not under Mosaic Law, marrying several hundred years prior to its promulgation. To be precise, good (and evil by comparison) is both absolute (being often"

That last word contradicts your whole point!

But back to the subject, the kid is the man's family, and needs to be brought into it properly, through wedlock. To say "I will let my child be born a bastard because I had sex with a girl who wasn't a Christian" is compounding the problem a thousand times more than if he marries an unbeliever. In this case, clearly she is sanctified in the sense Paul meant.

In Paupa New Guinea we'd have the problem of arrainged marriages, and the situation came up regularly, but I'll not go there for now.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> We don't need to get into a semantic debate here. Both "Law of God" and "Law of Moses" are biblical terminology, verbatim Scripture. The former is a broader expression which could refer to simply the same body of law that Moses received, or fuller to include larger units or even all of Scripture. When one speaks of "Moses' Law" the portion of Scripture being referred to is unambiguous.


Thankyou. I wondered if I had opened a can of worms by using the term 'Law of Moses'. I had never really thought about it before.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 17, 2005)

When I said "often", I meant I recognize that every law in the Bible is not _simply_ a reflection of God's moral nature, although _many_ of them are exactly that. God's moral standards never change, because he never changes. This is why the 10 commandments were binding before Moses, and today, and forever. Now God can command sacrifices one day, and forbid them another. Unequivocally the latter are moral laws just because God gave them out--how could they be anything else. They are moral issues as far as we are concerned because they involve our submission to God's authority. God hasn't changed in the least, but our circumstances have--by his fiat. The changes he makes are an expression of his freedom and our dependence and subjection. But "he cannot deny himself," after all. They are changes made within the framework of his changless, moral nature, _which is Morality._ I very much oppose the idea that God might command mass murders and rapes, and thus they become morality. We might as well deny the Scriptures and say that God can be _faithless_ (2 Tim 2:13).

Does this clarify my point?


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2005)

No, it doesn't clarify your point, because I understood it already. I just don't agree with it.

"God's moral standards never change, because he never changes."

That is a non-sequitur. I've shown how what now is clearly incest, and immoral, was once moral. 

And you example of mass murder is a perfect case in point. There were occasions during the invasion of the promise land where God commanded everyone to be killed. Men, women, children and even domestic animals and pets.

It was a one off thing, like other examples I've give e.g. holding our wealth in common, or recommending not to marry.

There is not anywhere else in scripture where God commands genocide, to the contrary, it is forbidden under Biblical law, as you can't punish the child for the sin of his father.

In all other cases genocide would be immoral, or in your words, "mass murder". But in that ONE case it was MORAL, simply because God said it was moral.

God can do absolutely anything He wants. Period. And that includes changing His definition of morality. He can order what is now truely mass murder, and it is GOOD and MORAL. He can command a man and wife and their children to have sex within the family and it is GOOD and MORAL even though today is evil, and justly deserves the death penalty.


----------



## strictestsect (Feb 17, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> To say "I will let my child be born a bastard because I had sex with a girl who wasn't a Christian" is compounding the problem a thousand times more than if he marries an unbeliever. In this case, clearly she is sanctified in the sense Paul meant.



How does it compound the problem? Prove your point if you don’t mind.

Also, you just twisted the text. Paul never implied what you stated about the woman being sanctified. The text infers conversion WITHIN marriage not reason to justify marriage. (1 Cor 7:14)


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2005)

"How does it compound the problem? Prove your point if you don’t mind.

Also, you just twisted the text. Paul never implied what you stated about the woman being sanctified. The text infers conversion WITHIN marriage not reason to justify marriage. (1 Cor 7:14) "

1. Letting your child be born outside the covenant, letting you child be raised either alone or by someone else, shirking of the responsiblity we in the Christian West have taken for granted for centuries.. I frankly don't see why it's not obvious. He got her pregnant, now he's responsible.

2. Why wouldn't it apply either way? Remember sin complicates things. If you are looking for a specific verse that applies to this exact circumstance you wont find one, unless you go back to the law, which says the guy (unless the girl is married or engaged) either has to marry her, or pay a fine.

OK, good. For those of you who think he can't marry her (because of what I see as a very limited, non contextual interpretation of the principle of not marrying outside the faith) what about the other option? Are you now going to demand that he pay a fine? Or is the man simply walking a way from his responsibilities OK?


----------



## strictestsect (Feb 17, 2005)

The law is applicable only to those to whom it was given. Never did I imply “shirking” the responsibility but on the contrary, affirmed it.


----------



## TimV (Feb 17, 2005)

"The law is applicable only to those to whom it was given."

No, actually it's applicable to everyone.

But we've all made our points, and I truely hope for the best in this man's situation, as well as the girl and the baby.

In Africa we always encouraged the practice of "lobola" or bride-dowery. In Bantu cultures, traditionally a guy's got to give a huge amount of money before he marries the girl, so if he should walk away she's got enough money to raise the child, and make herself attractive to a guy with more responsibility.

It was in the OT also, but sadly isn't much practiced today, even by Christians.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 18, 2005)

I've been back through this whole thread to try and analyze the course of this discussion. I've concluded that the *1*issue has become at least *3* (as far as my contributions go).

TimV,
I do think that in several cases we are speaking the same terms with different meanings attached, and this makes for hard communication. And we are (definitely) at odds over some things.

Let me begin with an agreement:
1) You say "He got her pregnant, now he's responsible." Certainly he is. And the point you make about paying up is applicable as well. In Israel it was a fine, just like a bride-price. You nailed it. In our day its called alimony, forced by legal decree to pay support--SOMETHING HE OUGHT TO DO VOLUNTARILY, and perhaps would as a Christian testimony. Here we agree. 

Key disagreements:
1) You say "marriage is an oath." This definition affects your argumentation, just like mine does. I say "marriage is a covenant of companionship" (see Prov. 2:17). Covenants involve oaths, but they are more than oath. Covenants set up relationships, and establish many things within them. Marriage therefore is both an event and a state of affairs following it.

2) You say (in essence) that _all_ morality is _fiat_ morality. God has a kind of absolute freedom of no fixed reference points to decree in a purely arbitrary fashion. This I find utterly inconsistent with God's self-revelation. (here I cannot help but have multiple sub-points to deal with several branches of the claims made) 

You said I was being "too simplistic" when I said we cannot keep sinful oaths (to which reminder of Ps. 15:4 I replied with nuance). I say you are being too simplistic in your understanding of morality, ruling out a foundational morality in the nature of God out of which springs God's comandment. 

God is absolutely free--to be himself. And he is morality, or _righteousness_ itself. God's Word tells us that God has certain self-limitations, without which he would cease to be God. I referenced 2 Tim. 2:13; see also Heb. 6:18. Jer 32:35 (and 19:5) speak of behavior so repulsive to God that he tells them it could never have been the case that he would ever suggest to them to do it. As for your suggestion that God might "command" incest in households, well why not suggest that God _could have_ commanded sacrificing children to Moloch? Except that God by Jeremiah tells us otherwise. It's equally unbecoming of our thoughts of God to propose that he might command us to do that which he has told us violates his _moral nature_ as well as his _moral fiats._ We are supposed to be holy, even as he is holy. 

The issue of the expansion of limitations on consanguine marriage could be discussed at length. Suffice to say it can be explained in a wholly rational (non-arbitrary) way, consistent with God's moral nature, and his care for creation. For that matter, simple incest (mother/son, father/daughter) was the first form of adultery that could have been committed, and plainly has always been condemnable. Paul (I Cor. 5:1) shows that pagans with only the light of nature know that even step-mother incest is unspeakably wicked.

As for the extermination of (certain) Canaanites, and their wholesale expulsion from the Promised Land (which was not fully obeyed in any case), here your argument turns on the definiton of murder. Your case: Israelites committed mass murder; God said do it; anything God says is OK, therefore, murder (this one time) was OK.

My reply: Murder is ending human life without due process or jurisdiction; execution is the result of due process; God has jurisdiction over all the nations; God judged the Canaanites guilty for their own sins, _and_ ordered them to reap the consequences of their covenant relation to their fathers (Ex. 20:5); God deputized the Israelite army as his executioners of divine justice against guilty sinners (Deut. 9:4; Lev. 18:24-30; cf. Gen. 15:16); since execution isn't murder, the Israelites weren't guilty of murder.

3) You say, "there are passages that can be used, I think, with wisdom, to justify marrying an unbeliever under those aformentioned circumstances." A vague appeal saying, "clearly she is sanctified in the sense Paul meant," is not an exegetical defense of this position by any means. In fact, in all your posts, you haven't quoted a single Scripture or referenced any. You have alluded to a few passages, but I've seen no interpretive work by you at all in any of them. And a number of places you've been completely wrong about even what you claimed the (unspecified) passage _said._ Its hard to prove a point when factually you are handicapped.

In any case, I would like to see you establish some kind of exegetical case positively for the position you hold, and negatively actually deal with some of the Scriptures that at least threaten to undermine the case you have built. Both I and others in this thread have offered a number of them. I say that a Christian ought never to marry an unbeliever, even when he has sinned against her and the child he fathered. You say it "is compounding the problem a thousand times more than if he marries an unbeliever." The latter is *forbidden.* Why do we think in our human wisdom that disobeying this command will compound the problem _less?_ I say, because God's wisdom says sin _kills,_ our operative stance ought to be that by adding sin to sin we should expect the situation to get worse if the believer marries the unbeliever.


----------



## TimV (Feb 18, 2005)

Perhaps there are indeed semantics involved here. I'll have to give the bulk of your post some serious thought. For now

"As for your suggestion that God might "command" incest in households"

Well, He did. He commanded Adam, Eve and their direct biological childred to have, bluntly, lots of sex. Although we don't know who paired of with whom, there can't be any getting around it. And it was good, at that time.

And

"My reply: Murder is ending human life without due process or jurisdiction; execution is the result of due process; God has jurisdiction over all the nations; God judged the Canaanites guilty for their own sins, and ordered them to reap the consequences of their covenant relation to their fathers (Ex. 20:5); God deputized the Israelite army as his executioners of divine justice against guilty sinners (Deut. 9:4; Lev. 18:24-30; cf. Gen. 15:16); since execution isn't murder, the Israelites weren't guilty of murder."

God specifically denies the right anyone to punish the sins of the Fathers on the their children. He specifically reserves this right for Himself. There is no instance in Scripture where God's people are ordered to break this law other than in the conquest. It was a specific case where God ordered something normally sinful. Just as the modern Israeli army is bulldozing down houses of parents of suicide bombers, it is illegal under Biblical law to kill a guy wife and 2 month old baby girl and their pet goat. There are no cirucumstances that allow this in Scripture. It is murder, pure and simple, and has typically been seen as such among Christians, such as in the teaching of Just War.

Another example is in 1 Kings chapter 20:

35"Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor by the word of the LORD, "Strike me, please." And the man refused to strike him. 36Then he said to him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, surely, as soon as you depart from me, a lion shall kill you." And as soon as he left him, a lion found him and killed him. "

This was clearly against the Law of God, but in this case it was good. Why? Because God said it was good. And it's the same for the one off command to kill babies.

[Edited on 2-18-2005 by TimV]


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2005)

> _Originally posted by TimV_
> "As for your suggestion that God might "command" incest in households"
> 
> Well, He did. He commanded Adam, Eve and their direct biological childred to have, bluntly, lots of sex. Although we don't know who paired of with whom, there can't be any getting around it. And it was good, at that time.


Chapter and verse, please. Please. From "be fruitful and multiply?" Please demonstrate. Show me your reasoning process.

Pairing was not, could not, be wily-nily. But it had to include brothers and sisters. Adultery=Incest at the time of our first parents. Adultery was a category that grew with every generation, every possibility of illicit relations. Incest was defined at that time as parent-child sexual relations. This I can demonstrate from Jesus' refutation of the Pharisees, Mt. 19:4-9. There, _by appealing to Genesis 1:27 and 2:24_ he proves that a proper marriage was always a two-person affair. So sex with mom or dad was always prohibited. *Incest was prohibited from the beginning.*

Over time, the gene pool becomes dilluted, close marriages would begin to show mental and physical deformities. Plain rationality doubtless played an early part in broadening human, civil, or custmary limitations on close marraiges. But God codifies and regulates marriage further in the Law of Moses, and places _divine_ restrictions on close marriages. God broadens the definiton of incest. How can you say "God commanded incest" unless you have already prejudiced your definition to allow your conclusion?


> _Originally posted by TimV_
> "My reply: Murder is ending human life without due process or jurisdiction; execution is the result of due process; God has jurisdiction over all the nations; God judged the Canaanites guilty for their own sins, and ordered them to reap the consequences of their covenant relation to their fathers (Ex. 20:5); God deputized the Israelite army as his executioners of divine justice against guilty sinners (Deut. 9:4; Lev. 18:24-30; cf. Gen. 15:16); since execution isn't murder, the Israelites weren't guilty of murder."
> 
> God specifically denies the right anyone to punish the sins of the Fathers on the their children. He specifically reserves this right for Himself.


How _exactly_ do you think I've denied this. Was the invasion of the land a _consequence_ of sins of generations, _as well as_ strictly being punishment for their own wickedness?


> _Originally posted by TimV_
> There is no instance in Scripture where God's people are ordered to break this law other than in the conquest. It was a specific case where God ordered something normally sinful. Just as the modern Israeli army is bulldozing down houses of parents of suicide bombers, it is illegal under Biblical law to kill a guy wife and 2 month old baby girl and their pet goat. There are no cirucumstances that allow this in Scripture. It is murder, pure and simple, and has typically been seen as such among Christians, such as in the teaching of Just War.


Again, this is only accurate if you agree that the Israelites were "breaking a law." But (and you yourself said this in an earlier post!) all killing is not murder, else magistrates are committing judicial murder in every case of capital punishment. How have you addressed even a single proposition of my extended sylogism that you quote above? 



> _Originally posted by TimV_
> Another example is in 1 Kings chapter 20:
> 
> 35"Now a certain man of the sons of the prophets said to his neighbor by the word of the LORD, "Strike me, please." And the man refused to strike him. 36Then he said to him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, surely, as soon as you depart from me, a lion shall kill you." And as soon as he left him, a lion found him and killed him. "
> ...


Finally, TimV, a scripture text. Thank you.

Yes. Ordinarily an unprovoked attack on anyone is a terrible sin against the 6th commandment (6C). And by the prophet God did command this individual to strike the prophet. *My* argument is that this incident doesn't oppose the 6C, because 
1) It doesn't fit the defintion of an unprovoked attack. God ordered this wounding because it was condusive to his moral or righteous will and purpose. God has the power of life and death over every man, and if he deputizes a person to act as his minister, that person is duty bound to obey.
2) The matter of _intent_ is not present. The wounding was not malicious. Jesus plainly shows that sin against the 6C begins in the heart. Mt. 5:21-22. This is no less reflected in the Law in the distinguishing made between manslaughter and murder (Ex. 21:12-13).

Therefore, I reject the idea that this event constitutes a true "exception" to the 6C. But, what if we could find one true exception to the 6C in the whole Bible--one event not explainable on any other ground. What would this prove? It would establish no such general principle such that God has no self-constraints, that he can for example be both a covenant-keeper (2 Tim. 2:13) and a covenant-breaker. In fact it would prove nothing at all (assuming we were interpretively correct) except that God made that particular exception, and not even that God makes other exceptions; because arguing from a particular instance to a general rule (induction) is fallacious. The best inductions, based on many examples, at best give us strong probabilities, or even rational presumptions--but never certainty.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2005)

Why do I feel like laboring over these issues that have come up in this thread? Because the issues are deeper than a "yes" or "no" answer to whether or not a Christian should marry an unbelieving girl he knocked up. More than whether he should assist his child and its mother, and what kind of support and fatherhood he owes them.

It is because I think the moral implications of God's nature impact our hermeneutics. Because we need to know as Christians, that our God is not like the arbitrary absolute god of Isalm; that he's not capricious, unreliable, inconsistent, illogical, or inscrutable like other false gods. It is because we have got to really, finally, and consistently fight to subject our thinking in every way to the coherent and perfect Word of God, and his wisdom.

God help me, I want to be corrected by the Bible where I need correcting. Please, don't any of you think that my intransigence on this thread is evidence of a blind dogmatism. My conscience is captive to the Word of God. But unless I am persuaded by the testimony of Scripture and plain reason, I have to take a stand for what I think is the truth presented in it.


----------



## TimV (Feb 19, 2005)

"Please, don't any of you think that my intransigence on this thread is evidence of a blind dogmatism"

Iron sharpens iron, and unless I miss my guess, this is one of the reasons for forum like this. But there comes a point where one must agree to disagree, and as I'm the newbie, this post will be it.

"It is because I think the moral implications of God's nature impact our hermeneutics. Because we need to know as Christians, that our God is not like the arbitrary absolute god of Isalm; that he's not capricious, unreliable, inconsistent, illogical, or inscrutable like other false gods. It is because we have got to really, finally, and consistently fight to subject our thinking in every way to the coherent and perfect Word of God, and his wisdom."

This is a classic case of setting up a straw man and destroying it.

"How can you say "God commanded incest" unless you have already prejudiced your definition to allow your conclusion?"

I'll try once more. By the moral standards of God, today what went on in Adam and Eve's family (and what you say is pure conjecture, but even under those conditions) was BAD. But then it was GOOD.

I in no way, shape for form said that "God commanded incest". I said the definition of incest is ONLY WHAT GOD SAYS IT IS, and not absolute. In this case, as with the genocide cited, it is moral, and temporary, rather than metaphysical.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 19, 2005)

I'm through too. Let other readers judge our comments.

Tim, I deliberately _disassociated_ the things I said in the last post from the longer one above it as a general broadcast to all readers, not directed at you personally. So, there's no straw man, no attacks in it. Just me justifying myself and my many, many words.


----------

