UnderAge Marriage?

[Puritan Sailor]

Scripture has high standards for the duties of wife and mother. A child is completely incapable of beginning to meet such standards. She is in no way able to be a helpmeet to her husband, and a husband can certainly never bear his own soul to a child-wife and get any consolation. It's simply a practical impossibility. There's more to marital union than just male sexual gratification. And I can't imagine how such a marriage to children would not begin with an act of rape. If you want further Scriptural basis, simply go back to Gen 2. Eve was designed as a helpmeet, that is a woman who perfectly complements her husband, both in function and dignity. Proverbs 31, though poetic, certainly requires more than a child could ever give. Now, I think it is entirely possible for a girl 13-15 years to be capable of such maturity (though biologically it's pushing it for some girls), but it is a rare thing in our culture. Certainly anyone younger, should wait. They must be mature enough to perform their spiritual and social duties, not just biological.

 

[Coram Deo]

Can you be more specific about the certain sexual practices that the scripture does not talk about, that would be wrong?

certain sexual practices within the marriage bed other than procreative intercourse, etc.? I have been curious about this in the past year and would like feedback.....

I did not, not agree with you.... In fact it was a very logical argument.... But I was looking for a scriptural argument....

Just because something seems logical or by natural law seem correct sometimes does not agree with scripture.... By all means it is a powerful argument but scripture is our final arbiter of right vs. wrong, moral vs. immoral... I once heard it said this way... "Where scripture is silent, we are silent and where scripture speaks, we speak."

Without the scripture we can come up with all sort of extra biblical morality for which some Christians are guilty of.. I know I have been guilty of that in the past....

I know someone who claims natural law for against drinking wine.... Saying that nature tells us it is too dangerous to attempt to drink a glass of wine.... But scripture never tell us that.. It condemns drunkenness, but not drinking wine...

So natural law is a good argument, and I have used it, but it must be backed up with scripture.....

Touche. But that raises some problems. Given the irresistible compelling power of natural law, how come very few people agreed with me?

 

[Amazing Grace]

Can you be more specific about the certain sexual practices that the scripture does not talk about, that would be wrong?

Michael, let's not push the envelope here. Or else Rich will have to come up with a rating system for certain threads. Lets at least keep this PG 13

 

[Coram Deo]

A PM would suffice.... Thanks....

Can you be more specific about the certain sexual practices that the scripture does not talk about, that would be wrong?

Michael, let's not push the envelope here. Or else Rich will have to come up with a rating system for certain threads. Lets at least keep this PG 13

 

[Herald]

Can you be more specific about the certain sexual practices that the scripture does not talk about, that would be wrong?

Michael, let's not push the envelope here. Or else Rich will have to come up with a rating system for certain threads. Lets at least keep this PG 13

*MOD HAT ON*

Thank you for that. Yeah, let us avoid this type of discussion. It's not necessary.

*MOD HAT OFF*

 

[LadyFlynt]

Interesting 4 page article...

Marriage Culture

If you scroll down, click on 4. it discusses age differences.

 

[satz]

My natural law comment was tongue in cheek. But does every ethical position have to be backed up by overt scriptural references? If so , what about forensic evidences, ovum transplants, organ transplants, giving blood, certain sexual practices within the marriage bed other than procreative intercourse, etc.?

I do believe that every moral position we take must be backed up by scriptural principles... even if overt references are not there, the principle must at least be directly inferrable from the bible. I think Patrick(PuritanSailor)'s post just above is a good example of such inferrence. However, I do not find much biblical merit in the reasoning that is sometimes used by christians today where they say: 'Well, obviously XYZ is wrong, it is against nature' since once we leave the bible, what is or is not unatural quickly degenerates into mere discussion of opinions.

 

[Richard King]

You know what, when it comes to these tricky issues I'm going to start borrowing from Jefferson.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident!!!!"

If Jefferson saw it, there must be an argument somewhere. I mean, the man who invented dumbwaiters for wine bottles, the hideaway bed, macaroni and cheese, not to mention a macaroni extruding device can't be wrong, can he??? MAC AND CHEESE PEOPLE!!!!!

Mac and cheese? That reminds me of a song I heard once about casseroles at a Pot Luck.

 

[Coram Deo]

Ok, After careful study and consideration I think the passage you quoted "Ezekiel 16:6-8" would be the best scriptural inference against underage marriage.... One must be past the sexual maturation phase of life.

I looked up what scientist and medical doctors had to say regarding puberty and it surprised me that the end of most puberty for females is an average of 14.5 years of age. Most begins at 10 to 12 but finishes by 14 to 14.5. Ezekiel 16 makes it clear that it is when the maturation is complete and everything is finished, Then the age to love comes.

That sounds about right with what the experts say about Mary the mother of Jesus being between 14 and 15 years of age when having our Dear Lord and Savior.

It does sound strange in our society since our country views it above 17 years of age. But aleast I have something now to tell the gentleman. I think John Calvin's view of 12 years of age is a bit drastic and off since alot of females are starting maturation at 12.

This topic has open a whole can of for me... As a Reformed credobaptist I have held that maturity and adulthood to be about 17 years of age.. So we per my strain of credobaptism we hold off baptism until 17 years of age... But if the scripture holds that 14 or 15 years of age is adulthood and is entitled to marriage then they would be entitled to baptism and church membership as well... Much to consider from this forum and the Ezekiel passage being mentioned...

I think the Bible does at least lay down a norm:

And when I passed by you and saw you wallowing in your blood, I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' I said to you in your blood, 'Live!' I made you flourish like a plant of the field. And you grew up and became tall and arrived at full adornment. Your breasts were formed, and your hair had grown; yet you were naked and bare.

"When I passed by you again and saw you, behold, you were at the age for love, and I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made my vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord GOD, and you became mine.

(Ezekiel 16:6-8, ESV)

The age for love is clearly after physical maturity has been reached: not just started, but attained with "full adornment". That rules out every 8-year old I've ever known.

 

[RamistThomist]

My natural law comment was tongue in cheek. But does every ethical position have to be backed up by overt scriptural references? If so , what about forensic evidences, ovum transplants, organ transplants, giving blood, certain sexual practices within the marriage bed other than procreative intercourse, etc.?

I do believe that every moral position we take must be backed up by scriptural principles... even if overt references are not there, the principle must at least be directly inferrable from the bible. I think Patrick(PuritanSailor)'s post just above is a good example of such inferrence. However, I do not find much biblical merit in the reasoning that is sometimes used by christians today where they say: 'Well, obviously XYZ is wrong, it is against nature' since once we leave the bible, what is or is not unatural quickly degenerates into mere discussion of opinions.

I sort of agree. Of course, when scripture is quite clear on a subject, then we have scriptural warrant. But given the change in cultures, technology, etc., we no longer have a one-to-one parallel. At this point, we must seek Scriptural underpinnings and ask what the general equity (oops, maybe not the right word. ) of a passage is.

 

[BJClark]

Interesting question...

We were visiting my grandparents last year and they were asking my daughters when they would be getting married. My oldest was 18, and the others were 13 and 14...my grandparents married when my grandmother was 16..and have been married some 70+ years..(I think they just want to still be alive to see great-great grandbabies, see another generation of their family line, but they aren't Christian's so I guess it's important to them to know there will be another generation started before they die)

My daughters looked at my grandparents as if they were crazy, and said probably when they were in their mid 20's.. then they asked if they have anyone in mind to be marrying..again the girls looked at them as if they were crazy...and I had to explain to my kids how years ago, folks married earlier, and typically didn't date a lot of different people..and how in some cases the parents even picked out a spouse for them...it was a different way of life years ago..

 

[Thomas2007]

Dear Brother Daniels,

I can give my opinion in applying the general equity of Scriptural case law to the subject.

The seventh Commandment is "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery" Ex 20:14, Deut 5:18

Marriage in the Biblical context prescribes marital sexuality, for the "two shall be one flesh." God has placed many restrictions upon the lawful utilization of sexuality, I believe a case can be made from Biblical law concerning this issue.

The basic institution is the family and the family is the custodian of children, for they are told to honor their father and mother, and this is the first commandment with Promise. The family has a responsibility to raise a godly seed, provide for and care for them, with all the duties intendent upon that responsibility.

There are laws against rape, seduction and other like things. Take rape, for example, a virgin that was raped in the city and didn't cry out was assumed to be involved in the act and not a case of rape. Deut 22:23-29 Likewise a virgin that was seduced damages the family and restitution is required so that she would have a double dowry and be perceived as having a value to offer a subsequent suitor in lieu of her virginity, if the man is rejected as a husband by her father. Exodus 22:16-17

In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, we have a case where a father has given his daughter to wife, subsequently the husband charges her with not being a virgin. The parents of the damsel are then to defend the honor of their daughter by bringing before the Priests the tokens of her virginity.

All of these laws deal with sexuality, violations of that sexuality in terms of virginity as well as engagement, so the situations are subject to marriage covenants not yet fulfilled.

The clear implications of all of these laws is the familial responsibility, as well as the societal responsibility, to protect the honor of women. Biblical law seems to indicate familial engagements and the like, but it clearly indicates that virgins remain in their fathers homes under his dominion until a time in which they are given to the husband. The case above extends it so far that the parents are to maintain relevant evidentiary proofs to a damsels virginity.

In the circumstances you describe, we must ask ourselves, is an eight year old child being forced into these situations by her family, or by the prospective suitor? Is she willingly going along with this, or is she crying out against it and being forced? Is the family maintaining her honor?

If the spirit of the law is being broken in terms of a child of eight years of age, then it is certainly an unlawful act, but it is not based solely upon the age - but her virginity and the expansive meaning of that virginity whereby she can be joined unto her husband and they two can be one flesh.

It sounds to me, presuming the worst of African society derived from its grotesque animism that governs everything else they do, that the intentions and circumstances around these child brides is occurring in violation of the spirit of the laws and is adulterating the family.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I think we must understand why Calvin came to his early age conclusion...that being that it was common for many girls to be married at 12-14yrs...and even amoung the nobility to be married at 4-6yrs and bedded at maturity. Thus he would see "young but able" differently than most. On Mary, I would agree with about 14yrs.

 

[py3ak]

So we actually have 3 scriptural arguments.
1. The Biblical definition of the age for love, taken from God's example in Ezekiel 16.
2. The divine intention for marriage requiring more than sexual maturity in Genesis 2.
3. The parental responsibility to protect their daughters from Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22.

This may challenge our thinking as to what is a marriageable age, but we can also see that it is not God's will that little girls should be delivered over to a lifetime of a debilitating and humiliating relationship.

 

[Coram Deo]

One problem with number #3.. In most society's that allow very young brides (example would be 10 years of age), it is usually the father giving over his daughter to a man to be his wife...... All done with Parental consent... In a depraved world as ours we need a firmer understanding of marriageable age like found in Ezekiel 16.

Michael

So we actually have 3 scriptural arguments.
1. The Biblical definition of the age for love, taken from God's example in Ezekiel 16.
2. The divine intention for marriage requiring more than sexual maturity in Genesis 2.
3. The parental responsibility to protect their daughters from Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22.

This may challenge our thinking as to what is a marriageable age, but we can also see that it is not God's will that little girls should be delivered over to a lifetime of a debilitating and humiliating relationship.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

One problem with number #3.. In most society's that allow very young brides (example would be 10 years of age), it is usually the father giving over his daughter to a man to be his wife...... All done with Parental consent... In a depraved world as ours we need a firmer understanding of marriageable age like found in Ezekiel 16.

Michael

So we actually have 3 scriptural arguments.
1. The Biblical definition of the age for love, taken from God's example in Ezekiel 16.
2. The divine intention for marriage requiring more than sexual maturity in Genesis 2.
3. The parental responsibility to protect their daughters from Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22.

This may challenge our thinking as to what is a marriageable age, but we can also see that it is not God's will that little girls should be delivered over to a lifetime of a debilitating and humiliating relationship.

Number 3 is grounded in the truth of numbers 1 an 2.
Add to that the biological/developmental considerations from general revelation which Jacob quoted from me above (which also matches the Scriptural data) and I think you have a clear cut case to answer your freind.

 

[py3ak]

Michael, I don't think it's so much a problem with #3 as sinful people not following God's laws. Some fathers have sold their children into prostitution: God will judge them for that, precisely because they are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Number 3 defines their responsibility, which as Patrick pointed out, they must fulfill according to the Scriptural guidelines with regard to marriageable age.