Do you think Paul considered the betrothal contract to be any less binding upon a couple (husband and wife) than the actual marriage ceremony (Deut. 22:23-29; Matt. 1:19)?
Impregnating a woman is not betrothal.
Whether or not there is premarital sex and the woman becomes pregnant is irrevelant. The question is whether a betrothal contract between a Christian and a non-Christian is just as binding a wedding ceremony. Consider the texts.
Ex. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29 present a situation where a man has voluntary sex (seduction) with a virgin who is not betrothed. He is required to marry the girl and may not divorce her. There is no criminal punishment for either man or woman.
In Deut. 22:23-24, the situation is the same except the virgin is betrothed to another man. In this case, both parties are stoned! Why? "the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city, and the man, he hath humbled his neighbor's wife."
Paul, in the context of Mosaic law, considers a betrothed couple to be husband and wife. Evangelical churches continued under this scriptural definition of husband and wife until quite recently. After the bands were published (to ensure there was no fraud by either party), the wedding ceremony took place as a solemn confirmation of the marriage commitment that was made at the time of betrothal.
I don't know if the commitment referenced in the original post was, in effect, a betrothal. If it was and there is no fraud, the parties are already husband and wife in the eyes of God.
Last edited by speratus; Thu Oct 13, 200512:51 AM.
