Is this person married? If not then why?

[TimV]

If both parties are willing to marry afterwards, they have that choice. The other choice is that the man has to pay a fine, as the man is considered guilty in the case of seduction if the woman isn't engaged or married.

Not sure what's wrong with that. Why shouldn't there be a penalty when it's so destructive to society? Is it heartless or something? Should society encourage it?

 

[Brian Withnell]

Brian,

As I hope you have seen, above I restated my question to make it more understandable, maybe you know a way in which this law could still be binding, I highly doubt you are a reconstructionist or anything else like that though...lol

Fast moving thread. You are right, I'm not a reconstructionist in any sense. If you see my later reply, you might get that I do believe in repentance being not just something we do internally, but that we do right by what we have promised.

By the way, I think this works both ways. If a woman seduces a man with the promise of love, then I think repentance on her part might include forsaking all others as well.

Some of the OT law was civil, and the equity was to assure the woman would not be left destitute because she would likely not be able to marry (she was no longer a virgin) and would be without someone to provide (ancient world before the advent of Christianity did not look favorably upon a single woman trying to make it on her own).

 

[OPC'n]

Why is it all the man's fault? So he tells the girl he loves her to get her into bed. The girl is just as responsible for having sex with him. If he then repents and doesn't want to marry her bc he just doesn't why should he have to marry her? So she has her heart broken....teaches her to not to sin anymore....right?

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----

women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Why is it all the man's fault? So he tells the girl he loves her to get her into bed. The girl is just as responsible for having sex with him. If he then repents and doesn't want to marry her bc he just doesn't why should he have to marry her? So she has her heart broken....teaches her to not to sin anymore....right?

Sarah,

If the man is to repent, then should his repentance cause pain in someone else? While I agree in principle that it isn't just the man's fault, in practice I've only seen a very few cases where a woman just uses a man for sex and dumps them. More often, a man is using every emotional tug in the book to get what he wants. What does his repenting look like? I think that if you steal something from someone, that repenting means you pay them back. If a man seduces a woman, how does he pay the debt to her? If it were the promise of love that he used to obtain the object of his lust, then the promise of love must be fulfilled if he is to repent of that particular part of the sin.

It isn't very repentant of a man to use a woman, then say he repents and do nothing for the woman other than what he would do to her if he were unrepentant. Repentance has a practical side to it not just a spiritual side. What I see a lot of in the church today is the "spiritual" side of repentance the only side of repentance being shown. That just isn't right.

 

[AThornquist]

By the very fact that OT saints had more than one wife....like David the man after God's own heart

the bible specifically says not to be a drunkard but it doesn't say not to have more than one wife.

Yes, several OT saints had more than one wife. That however is descriptive and not prescriptive, just like their sins which are also recorded. It is important to note the context of those relationships. Certain polygamist relationships helped lead to sin (consider Solomon's idolatry) and the polygamist relationships of Abraham, Jacob, and David were not preferable and in fact for Jacob and David came about in times of spiritual lacking, not times of seeking for the glory of God.

Besides, using the description of David being "after God's own heart" as an implied support of David's polygamist actions is a pretty irresponsible thing to do because you are quite literally implying that God would be open to taking more than one bride for himself. Yes, David was a man after God's own heart, but he was a man nonetheless. He sinned. He was fallible. Just because he was a man after God's own heart does not mean that all his actions, including polygamy, were proper.

While monogamy may not be as slap-you-in-da-face obvious as "don't be a drunk" in the Scriptures, it is important to consider what was meant by a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Couple that with Ephesians 5:22-33 and show me where there is any room for polygamy. A man and a woman are to model Christ and the church. There is only one church, isn't there?

 

[Brian Withnell]

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----
women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

 

[OPC'n]

By the very fact that OT saints had more than one wife....like David the man after God's own heart

the bible specifically says not to be a drunkard but it doesn't say not to have more than one wife.

Yes, several OT saints had more than one wife. That however is descriptive and not prescriptive, just like their sins which are also recorded. It is important to note the context of those relationships. Certain polygamist relationships helped lead to sin (consider Solomon's idolatry) and the polygamist relationships of Abraham, Jacob, and David were not preferable and in fact for Jacob and David came about in times of spiritual lacking, not times of seeking for the glory of God.

Besides, using the description of David being "after God's own heart" as an implied support of David's polygamist actions is a pretty irresponsible thing to do because you are quite literally implying that God would be open to taking more than one bride for himself. Yes, David was a man after God's own heart, but he was a man nonetheless. He sinned. He was fallible. Just because he was a man after God's own heart does not mean that all his actions, including polygamy, were proper.

While monogamy may not be as slap-you-in-da-face obvious as "don't be a drunk" in the Scriptures, it is important to consider what was meant by a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Couple that with Ephesians 5:22-33 and show me where there is any room for polygamy. A man and a woman are to model Christ and the church. There is only one church, isn't there?

I'm all for one man-one woman...and wouldn't want it any other way. But why didn't God reprimand Abraham, Jacob, David etc for having more than one wife?

 

[Brian Withnell]

By the very fact that OT saints had more than one wife....like David the man after God's own heart

the bible specifically says not to be a drunkard but it doesn't say not to have more than one wife.

Yes, several OT saints had more than one wife. That however is descriptive and not prescriptive, just like their sins which are also recorded. It is important to note the context of those relationships. Certain polygamist relationships helped lead to sin (consider Solomon's idolatry) and the polygamist relationships of Abraham, Jacob, and David were not preferable and in fact for Jacob and David came about in times of spiritual lacking, not times of seeking for the glory of God.

Besides, using the description of David being "after God's own heart" as an implied support of David's polygamist actions is a pretty irresponsible thing to do because you are quite literally implying that God would be open to taking more than one bride for himself. Yes, David was a man after God's own heart, but he was a man nonetheless. He sinned. He was fallible. Just because he was a man after God's own heart does not mean that all his actions, including polygamy, were proper.

While monogamy may not be as slap-you-in-da-face obvious as "don't be a drunk" in the Scriptures, it is important to consider what was meant by a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Couple that with Ephesians 5:22-33 and show me where there is any room for polygamy. A man and a woman are to model Christ and the church. There is only one church, isn't there?

This is quite like ancient Israel being polytheistic prior to the Babylonian captivity. Prior to deportation, Israel and Judea were practicing polytheistic states. They did worship more than one God all the time. It isn't that they were not told to have not other Gods, but that they refused to listen to the command. That was with clear teaching (how do you foul up "no other gods before me"?) The teaching of one man, one wife is much more subtle ... God instituted marriage by one man and one woman.

 

[OPC'n]

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----
women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

I'm not even talking about lust. Even if a man was lusting and a woman was in love that's no excuse. She is just as responsible for her actions of sin as he is of his. Their actions might stem from different reasons but they ended in sin and both come from a depraved heart. It's her fault for trusting him and not following God's law that's what she gets. He owes her nothing except an apology for sinning against her and her against him but mostly against God.

 

[AThornquist]

I'm all for one man-one woman...and wouldn't want it any other way. But why didn't God reprimand Abraham, Jacob, David etc for having more than one wife?

The most logical conclusion I know is that it is like the case of divorce, which was permitted for a time because of the hardness of man's heart, "but it was not so from the beginning." (Matt. 19:4-8)

 

[OPC'n]

I'm all for one man-one woman...and wouldn't want it any other way. But why didn't God reprimand Abraham, Jacob, David etc for having more than one wife?

The most logical conclusion I know is that it is like the case of divorce, which was permitted for a time because of the hardness of man's heart, "but it was not so from the beginning." (Matt. 19:4-8)

Good answer!

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Deuteronamy22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.


OK

Let me explain, I am not asking if or claiming that anyone was ever married by sexual union, I am asking if sexual union OUTSIDE of marriage still requires the man to take the women as his wife forever.

Like I posted earlier I think I know the answer which is NO because of that law being ceremonial and abrogated in Christ.

I would like to see other opinions on this though if there are any...

The text doesn't say they are married because of their sexual act. She becomes his wife AFTER he pays the bride price to the father, if the father accepts it. It's the public transaction which begins the marriage, not the prior immorality.

We see this with the story of Jacob's daughter Dinah. She was violated, but Jacob would not permit her to marry until the offending men were circumcised.

 

[charliejunfan]

Yeah I clarified further on, obviously in Deut22:28 the premarital sex did LEAD to marriage, that is what I was meaning...

 

[Brian Withnell]

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----
women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

I'm not even talking about lust. Even if a man was lusting and a woman was in love that's no excuse. She is just as responsible for her actions of sin as he is of his. Their actions might stem from different reasons but they ended in sin and both come from a depraved heart. It's her fault for trusting him and not following God's law that's what she gets. He owes her nothing except an apology for sinning against her and her against him but mostly against God.

I'm not so sure. Call me a male chauvinist, but I hold the man more responsible for we are the ones called to be head of household, we are called to be the stronger. If one of my sons seduces a woman, or is seduced by a woman, I will be more disappointed in them than if a man seduced or is seduced by one of my daughters. I look at question 151 of the WLC and "particularly weak breathern" as fitting the situation ... and like I said, I may be a chauvinist in this instance. If woman are the weaker vessel, and we (men) sin against a woman, that is worse than sinning against a man.

 

[Scottish Lass]

Multiple wives rarely brought peace into the home, if I recall correctly. God allowed it, but He doesn't appear to have blessed it directly.

 

[bookslover]

...or if a "virgin price" need still be offered to those woman's fathers.

The "bride price" does not apply to believers now because this was part of the Old Testament civil law, which became defunct when Israel ceased to exist as a nation in the first century. While sexual sin is, indeed, prohibited in the Ten Commandments, this particular extrapolation from it is no longer valid. There is no "bride price" being paid today - but all sexual intercourse before marriage is still very much a sin. Again: the moral law is in force, but this particular application of that moral law in the Old Testament Jewish civil law is not.

 

[TimV]

We see this with the story of Jacob's daughter Dinah. She was violated, but Jacob would not permit her to marry until the offending men were circumcised.

She was violated in the true sense that she was seduced. And since there was no rape, but seduction, the just penalty would have been a fine or marriage. And that's why Jacob cursed his two kids, because the death penalty is just for rape, but not for seduction.

 

[OPC'n]

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

I'm not even talking about lust. Even if a man was lusting and a woman was in love that's no excuse. She is just as responsible for her actions of sin as he is of his. Their actions might stem from different reasons but they ended in sin and both come from a depraved heart. It's her fault for trusting him and not following God's law that's what she gets. He owes her nothing except an apology for sinning against her and her against him but mostly against God.

I'm not so sure. Call me a male chauvinist, but I hold the man more responsible for we are the ones called to be head of household, we are called to be the stronger. If one of my sons seduces a woman, or is seduced by a woman, I will be more disappointed in them than if a man seduced or is seduced by one of my daughters. I look at question 151 of the WLC and "particularly weak breathern" as fitting the situation ... and like I said, I may be a chauvinist in this instance. If woman are the weaker vessel, and we (men) sin against a woman, that is worse than sinning against a man.

I would never call you a male chauvinist but doesn't the Psalms or Proverbs talk about it being the woman's fault for seducing men?

 

[TimV]

I would never call you a male chauvinist but doesn't the Psalms or Proverbs talk about it being the woman's fault for seducing men?

Yes, in the famous Proverbs passage, but the story says she's married, and in that case she gets the same penalty. With unmarried, unengaged women the law comes down harder on the man, for whatever reason.

 

[AThornquist]

If woman are the weaker vessel, and we (men) sin against a woman, that is worse than sinning against a man.

If you read Deuteronomy 22:22-29, it's clear that the sinful actions of men against weaker vessels (women) brought swift punishment and that the women who allowed the actions were equally punished. However, I don't think a man sinning against another man is less of a sin, nor would a woman sinning against a man be any less than if a man sinned against the woman. I think sins against others are judged irrespective of gender but there are some sins that normally make men primarily responsible for because they are the ones who are physically capable of stopping the situation, such as mutual, unwed sexual relations. BUT, even if the man is primarily responsible because of his strength, the woman is no less guilty because she allowed it by not screaming for help.

A man sinning against another man is not less of a sin but the dynamics of the circumstances would typically be different so as to make a mutual sin not the primary responsibility of one party but there would be equal guilt and equal responsibility because neither would be the weaker vessel.

But it really is about circumstances. As mentioned above, women can be guilty of seduction if they are the "aggressor," though I still think that the man would be primarily responsible in a sense for allowing the situation to become worse; he can physically stop it while she can only draw him by the sinful desires of his heart.

 

[Spinningplates2]

Dr. Schaffer thought that people who had sex before marrage were in some way "married" but he did not go in to detail as to why. I think it was because the two became one in his view.

 

[he beholds]

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----
women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

I'm not even talking about lust. Even if a man was lusting and a woman was in love that's no excuse. She is just as responsible for her actions of sin as he is of his. Their actions might stem from different reasons but they ended in sin and both come from a depraved heart. It's her fault for trusting him and not following God's law that's what she gets. He owes her nothing except an apology for sinning against her and her against him but mostly against God.

I can totally see how man is to blame more often than woman in a sexual relationship. I think typically, in situations where a woman (or girl) is pressured/coerced/seduced into having sex, the man is at fault.
I also think, typically, when a man is seduced, the woman is to blame.
I think more frequently men are the ones taking advantage, and I think they need to repent of that whereas the girl may need to simply ask for forgiveness--unless forgiveness always requires a component of repentance...probably it does. It's late, so I may not be making sense. But I do think that men can be held responsible for causing women to sin.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 12:05:54 EST-----

Dr. Schaffer thought that people who had sex before marrage were in some way "married" but he did not go in to detail as to why. I think it was because the two became one in his view.

I actually think that there is something to this idea. I think sex does bind people, and to become binded to someone, and then to unbind yourself (b/c you weren't actually married) is impossible.

 

[AThornquist]

Dr. Schaffer thought that people who had sex before marrage were in some way "married" but he did not go in to detail as to why. I think it was because the two became one in his view.

I actually think that there is something to this idea. I think sex does bind people, and to become binded to someone, and then to unbind yourself (b/c you weren't actually married) is impossible.

I concur though I'm not able to expound on my rationale very well. Perhaps if sex is meant for marriage only, it is supposed to be a fruit of marriage. A sexually involved unwed couple would thus show a type of fruit of marriage yet it is unacceptable because their actions are out of order and not as the Lord intended. That sin would not negate the fact that the relationship bears a distinct mark of what should be experienced only in marriage.

 

[Wannabee]

I, for one, thought it was a great question, Charlie. And I don't think it was settled here very well. I'm a bit unsettled on this. While I agree with what you said, there does seem to be some unrelieved tension still there. I wish I could KNOW the answer without hesitation.

Some have said that there needs to be a witness. Who says? Is not God witness enough? If a couple takes vows before God is that not good enough? If not, then please provide Scripture. I would love to have a clear cut answer to these questions.

 

[OPC'n]

I, for one, thought it was a great question, Charlie. And I don't think it was settled here very well.

I thought my answers were eloquent!

 

[TimV]

I, for one, thought it was a great question, Charlie. And I don't think it was settled here very well. I'm a bit unsettled on this. While I agree with what you said, there does seem to be some unrelieved tension still there. I wish I could KNOW the answer without hesitation.

I could make a crack about loaning you some of my Rushdoony books, but I'll refrain from saying "well, it's easy. The Bible says the couple and families have the option of marriage or a fine. It's both clear and easy"

 

[Brian Withnell]

If woman are the weaker vessel, and we (men) sin against a woman, that is worse than sinning against a man.

If you read Deuteronomy 22:22-29, it's clear that the sinful actions of men against weaker vessels (women) brought swift punishment and that the women who allowed the actions were equally punished. However, I don't think a man sinning against another man is less of a sin, nor would a woman sinning against a man be any less than if a man sinned against the woman. I think sins against others are judged irrespective of gender but there are some sins that normally make men primarily responsible for because they are the ones who are physically capable of stopping the situation, such as mutual, unwed sexual relations. BUT, even if the man is primarily responsible because of his strength, the woman is no less guilty because she allowed it by not screaming for help.

A man sinning against another man is not less of a sin but the dynamics of the circumstances would typically be different so as to make a mutual sin not the primary responsibility of one party but there would be equal guilt and equal responsibility because neither would be the weaker vessel.

But it really is about circumstances. As mentioned above, women can be guilty of seduction if they are the "aggressor," though I still think that the man would be primarily responsible in a sense for allowing the situation to become worse; he can physically stop it while she can only draw him by the sinful desires of his heart.

I'm just going by the WLC and questions 150 and 151.

Q. 150. Are all transgressions of the law of God equally heinous in themselves, and in the sight of God?
A. All transgressions of the law of God are not equally heinous; but some sins in themselves, and by reason of several aggravations, are more heinous in the sight of God than others.

151 is rather long and contains many of the aggravations, one of which is "particularly weak brethren" which I realize some may not take as meaning against the weaker vessel, but I do believe that men who sin against women commit an act more heinous than against other men of like station and strength. 1 Cor 16:13 commands "act like men" and I take that to mean we are to stand more firmly in the faith. Too often men are pushy brutes or wishy-washy in the faith. It is to me more shameful that a man sins against a woman than for a woman to sin against a man. Since the creation, man has been told to lead, and how often is it we fail our calling, and in doing so cause harm not only to ourselves, but to our families, our churches, and the world. That does not mean it won't happen, but if we see this as more heinous, perhaps we will work harder to avoid such sin; at least that is my hope.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 05:53:04 EST-----

I would never call you a male chauvinist but doesn't the Psalms or Proverbs talk about it being the woman's fault for seducing men?

Thank you for your gracious reply ... I know I walk on thin ice these days with some of the things I hold as true.

Proverbs does warn against being seduced by the adulterous woman ... and some of what I think it says is to strengthen a son against one of the most difficult sins for a man to avoid, but much of what it says is geared toward not just any adulterous, but to the one calling in the streets ... the prostitute that is actively selling herself. To be sure, those that make every attempt to live by sin are sinning, and in those cases, it may be that the woman is committing the more heinous sin (if in fact a man is seduced who would without enticement have just walked by without a glance). But men should be more in control of themselves. "Boys will be boys" is so wrong in so many ways. It is what the world teaches, but God requires more.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 06:02:09 EST-----

I can totally see how man is to blame more often than woman in a sexual relationship. I think typically, in situations where a woman (or girl) is pressured/coerced/seduced into having sex, the man is at fault.
I also think, typically, when a man is seduced, the woman is to blame.
I think more frequently men are the ones taking advantage, and I think they need to repent of that whereas the girl may need to simply ask for forgiveness--unless forgiveness always requires a component of repentance...probably it does. It's late, so I may not be making sense. But I do think that men can be held responsible for causing women to sin.

Repentance is always required, but repentance for the person who is seduced is different than the person seducing. One is sinning at the prompting of another person and weak and needs to stand firm in what is right.

We all are so steeped in sin that it is difficult to see how utterly sinful we are. It is only by grace that we see any of our own sinfulness.

The seducer is not only guilty of the sexual sin itself, but of causing another to sin (causing at least in the sense of enticing them to sin).

 

[jogri17]

NT saints are not bound by Jewish civil law.

 

[Peairtach]

This law has to be assessed in the light of the culture of the Old Testament where you had married women, young virgins under the protection of their fathers and prostitutes.

You apparently didn't have a class of women that slept around for no money.

There's also the fact that virginity before marriage was highly valued, as it should still be by Christians, and therefore this girl may have found it difficult to get married to someone else.

It seems that the case of sexual relations in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 was by mutual consent and as well as providing the support of a husband for the girl, it may have deterred casual sex because of the financial penalty, and because you had to marry someone you slept with.

The more Christianised a society becomes, the more these principles will come into play, and the more laws like these will become practical possibilities.

The more Christianised a society becomes, the more choosy Christian men will be, e.g. about factors such as whether the woman is a virgin or not, the more protective fathers will also be of their virgin daughters, because feminist principles will go out the window, and the more careful virgin daughters will be about who they sleep with first of all.

There is the Q of freedom of choice, and whether its wise to force someone to marry someone just because they slept with them (once). But if a law similar to this was in place, it might make people think seriously before they slept with anyone outside of marriage, and also who they were going to sleep with.

In Christian societies until recent times couples were expected to marry if they were found to be having sexual relations, or a young man was expected to marry a young woman if he made her pregnant.

It should be a factor in deciding who to marry, although some such shotgun weddings may be a mistake.

In a Christian society the kind of feminism, rampant individualism, permissiveness and sexualisation of culture that we currently have in the decadent West would go.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 07:45:22 EST-----

NT saints are not bound by Jewish civil law.

They are bound by the General Equity (GE) of the law.

 

[dr_parsley]

Dr. Schaffer thought that people who had sex before marrage were in some way "married" but he did not go in to detail as to why. I think it was because the two became one in his view.

I have to say that as a new Christian speed-reading the bible straight through, I gained the same definite impression as that you refer to Dr. Schaffer (although I don't know who that gentleman is). If it helps you to make sense of 1Co 6:16, my view used to be that the sex act did "marry them" i.e. it made them one flesh and was a necessarily spiritual union no matter how little spirituality the participants were aware of, God was aware. Then in a promiscuous relationship they go their separate ways and receive as casual a divorce as was their marriage. The sin is essentially in the divorce and outside of a normal and publicly avowed marriage, that divorce is inevitable.

Anyway, I say, "used to believe" because if pressed I would claim not to have any opinion on this marginal issue, nor the time to hold or defend one! I post this merely for information about a view possible to hold.