The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Pregnancy/Unwed Mother Issue

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.

The situation described by ELECT appears to be a betrothed couple where the wedding has not yet taken place, "He is committed to my sister and his child but they are not yet married."

If you agreed with Paul, you would not suggest that a betrothed Christian should break an engagement to a non-Christian in clear violation of scripture. Christians are not under the Mosiac law of betrothal but they delight in obeying the moral law of God. They do not bear false witness by welshing on their engagement promise of fidelity to a non-Christian spouse. They do not defraud their non-Christian spouse by abandoning him or her without cause. They do not covet a Christian spouse when they are pledged and promised to a non-Christian spouse.

You are assuming that "committed" is synonymous with betrothal, which has not been established. One could rightly take ELECT's statement to mean that the man has feelings for his sister and accepts responsibility for the pregnancy and the welfare of the woman.

Secondly, you still are maintaining that if a Christian oaths to do that which is sinful, they are under divine and irreversible obligation to follow through with whatever it was they vowed. This is clearly indefensible biblically. All men, but particularly professing Christians are to repent of all sin which includes any intent to commit sin. (cf. Matt 5:27ff) Vowing betrothal to marry a non-Christian is without question a sin and must be repented of. (2Cor 6:14ff) Unless you can supply biblical evidence to the contrary, you are therefore espousing error of which you must repent.

In His grace,

speratus,

I have already written in my other reply to you that even IF there is a commitment to marry between these two people, Paul in 2Cor 6:14ff makes it clear that such unions are sinful and should not take place. Further, the Lord Christ would contradict your erroneous interpretation and/or application of the texts you quoted as seen here:

John 4:16-18 (ASV) Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said unto him, I have no husband. Jesus saith unto her, Thou saidst well, I have no husband: for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly.

What we see here is a woman who is living with a man out of wedlock of whom the Lord says is NOT HER HUSBAND. Thus He did not consider the woman to be married to this man. The situation described in this passage transcends a verbal commitment/intent to marry. Thus if the Lord Christ did not consider the woman to be married to one with whom she was cohabiting, how much less is one to be considered married of they simply vow to become married.

In His grace,

I am beginning to see a pattern. In almost every thread you take the opposite side of most of the posters on the forums.
Are you playing devils advocate?

Tom

His statement was ambiguous which is why I said "appears".


The betrothal completed the action of becoming husband and wife (Deut. 22:24). The marriage rite is the public confirmation of a union that has already occurred. In the eyes of God, the betrothed couple are husband and wife (e.g., Joseph purposes to divorce Mary quietly so that she would not be stoned for adultery, Matt. 1:19).


2 Cor. 6:14 is not applicable. Making the union was sinful. Dishonoring a union previously made is also sinful (Ex. 20:14).


Not applicable. Jesus says nothing of any betrothal between her and the man.

Perhaps, from your perspective. I post my personal opinion to threads that interest me not to play devil's advocate.

From the way I understand it, during the times you are speaking of (old testament) there was a literal contract of betrothal. It was as you describe, with the marriage ceremony confirming the contract. It is not so now though and you must know this. I don't think that Elect said anything about a contract being drawn up for betrothal, otherwise he would surely have mentioned it and his issue may have been, "should we try and get her out of the contract."

Also, if I understand it correctly, in the old jewish system,it was the father who made the contract for the bride to be and her future husband. I don't think this is the case with Elect's sister.

Michele

I know that modernists wish to abolish what evangelical churches have always taught concerning betrothal. If there is no NT betrothal contract, why does the WCF, Art. XXIV, state, "Adultery or fornication committed after a contract, being detected before marriage, gives just occasion to the innocent party to dissolve that contract."?


I grant that Elect was rather ambiguous but the fact that the brother was aware of the non-Christian's commitment to his sister implies tacit consent by the family of their engagement.

Regardless of this specific case, do you believe that non-belief is grounds for terminating a betrothal?

I guess in my mind we would have to come up with a hypothetical situation. Because Elect's sister has gotten pregnant out of wedlock she obviously had an adulterous relationship with this man. He is also a man who is not a Christian, or even professes to be one. I would have to question her profession altogether. So answering your question cannot really speak to this situation I think.

Say.. IF there were a christian woman who is engaged to a non christian man, and she realizes that this would be a mistake, she should break it off. It would be a sin to marry him knowing that she belongs to God, and he does not.

I am not as good anymore about remembering addresses of verses, but in regards to keeping promises the bible does not say to keep a promise to commit sin, or do something wrong. It says we should keep a promise or commitment even if it is going to be very inconvenient, or to our own "hurt." It also says in Proverbs that if you, for instance, cosign, or are "surety" for someone, to go and beg them to let you out of it. Cosigning is unwise. So I don't see a problem with breaking an engagement.

One other point is in Ezra. When the people were told that they were in sin because they had married to and had children by the women of the land and not their own people, they repented. I don't think God commanded them to do this, but they divorced all these women and left the situation. I guess that's a whole 'nuther can of worms though.

Anyway.. that's it. it's early <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/coffee2.gif" alt="" /> it's early, and I need to go wake up a little more LOL.

Michele

Speratus, what does this have to do with the situation at hand? No contract was made. A vague sense of "commitment" from a heathen to a Christian is by no means a betrothal.


What engagement? You are inventing facts not in evidence.

In my two questions, I was giving you an opportunity to affirm or reject the WCF, Article XXIV. Is your answer "not-applicable"?

Not applicable. There is no contract in view in the situation before us.