Feminism and Bible Translation

One central point about the Bible that must be understood is that God does not change.  When one sees something in Scripture that looks like God has changed, look for the change somewhere else because by His own testimony, God does not change.

The post about Status had a good example of an issue that drives feminists crazy.

A virgin has no agency.  She is married to any eligible man who takes her virginity, whether she consents to marriage or not (Genesis 2:24).  She may be forced into a marriage she does not desire and does not consent to by her father, as a free woman, or she may be denied marriage by her father (1st Corinthians 7:36-38).  She may be sold into permanent slavery by her father to be the concubine of a free man (a slave-wife) or the wife of another slave (Exodus 21:7-11).  She may be raped into marriage, against her will and over her objections (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).  She may voluntarily enter into a marriage without her father’s knowledge and in the day he hears of it, he may allow it, or he may annul the marriage if he so desires (Exodus 22:16-17).

Feminist churchians can’t tolerate what God’s Word actually says (or doesn’t say) so they constantly work to redefine words and change the meaning of things to fit their agenda.  Notice that 1st Corinthians 7:36-38 was cited in the paragraph about virgins.  Let’s look at it from the NASB:

36 But if any man thinks that he is acting unbecomingly toward his virgin daughter, if she is past her youth, and if it must be so, let him do what he wishes, he does not sin; let [a]her marry. 37 But he who stands firm in his heart, [b]being under no constraint, but has authority [c]over his own will, and has decided this in his own heart, to keep his own virgin daughter, he will do well. 38 So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

a: Lit. them
b: Lit. having no necessity
c: Lit. pertaining to

The NASB translates it in the way it has traditionally been translated, as instruction to the father of the virgin who is under his authority.  One of the reasons I like the original NASB is the translators additions to the text are in italics.  As you can see, the word “daughter” doesn’t appear in the original text.  And, as is apparent, the word translated in the NASB as “let her marry” (gameitōsan) literally means “let them marry”.  That was all it took for the feminists to swing into action and completely change the translation to attack the authority of the father and the status of the virgin.

The issue here is one of authority and that is exactly the reason feminists hate this passage.  The text refers to “the virgin” and the man making the decisions about “the virgin” and her marriage must have the authority to make such a decision.  Who has authority over “the virgin”?  Only the father (before a betrothal) or the betrothed husband after the vows are made.  There can be no-one else with authority over her.

It should also be noted (again) that the virgin has no agency, her consent to the marriage is not required and her father has the authority to give her to the man he chooses.  Contrary to modern ideas about betrothal and marriage, the virgin did not have the authority to “break off the engagement” after her father and her husband agreed to the betrothal any more than she had the authority to divorce her husband after he married her.

With that in mind, observe the way 1st Corinthians 7:36-38 translated in the Berean Study Bible (BSB):

36However, if someone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his betrothed, and if she is beyond her youth and they ought to marry, let him do as he wishes; he is not sinning; they should get married. 37But the man who is firmly established in his heart and under no constraint, with control over his will and resolve in his heart not to marry the virgin, he will do well.  38So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.

The BSB has this text translated as instruction to the man who is betrothed to the virgin.   To betroth a woman is to take a vow to marry her after the betrothal period and any other requirements are complete.  From the time of betrothal, even though he will not marry (penetrate) her until the betrothal requirements are complete, the woman is his wife (c.f. Deuteronomy 22:23-24) and she is no longer an eligible virgin.  She is a betrothed virgin and no other man may marry her.

Observe what Numbers 30:2 has to say about a man making a vow.

“If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.”

Likewise observe what Deuteronomy 23:21 says about a vow to the Lord:

“When you make a vow to the LORD your God, you shall not delay to pay it, for it would be sin in you, and the LORD your God will surely require it of you.”

Then consider that according to the translation of the BSB, Paul is speaking to the man who is a betrothed to a virgin who is now “past her youth”.  While she was betrothed to this man she could not even contemplate any other man and she waited.  Now she is past her youth.  Some might call the idea of abandoning her at this point “adding insult to injury”.

While it would be easy to argue textual analysis, I won’t because that’s just the kind of argument feminist churchians love.  An argument that avoids the real issue.

The claim Paul was instructing men that they could violate their vow and abandon their wife and is preposterous.  In fact, translating the instruction that way has Paul directly contradicting himself, because in verses 26-27 of their own translation he said:

26Because of the present crisis, I think it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27Are you committed to a wife? Do not seek to be released. Are you free of commitment? Do not look for a wife.”  (Emphasis added)

We cannot possibly have Paul stating that if a man is committed to a wife he is not to seek to be released and then ten verses later have him saying that if the man feels like it he can violate his vows and abandon the wife he committed to with his betrothal vows.   Look at the summation of that instruction as translated by the BSB:

So then, he who marries the virgin does well, but he who does not marry her does even better.

The BSB has Paul saying that the man who keeps his vows and marries his wife does well, but the man who violates his vows and abandons his wife does even better. Preposterous.

Let’s contrast that twaddle with the NASB:

So then both he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.

The NASB translation is completely in line with the thrust of Paul’s message that it’s better not to get married in order to focus on the things of the Lord rather than the things of the world, as well as his statement that it’s better to remain as you are.  There are no vows being violated in this translation and Paul’s instruction reflects the father’s God-given authority over his daughter.

Given that God does not change and God’s Law requires that when a man makes a vow he must keep his word and honor his vow, Paul could not possibly have been giving men permission to violate their vows and abandon their wives.   Yet, that leaves us with what the text is actually talking about, which is a New Testament reinforcement of the authority of the fathers over their daughters and points to the fact that the virgin has no agency.  That, to feminists, is anathema.

Feminism is cancer.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way. Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to Feminism and Bible Translation

  1. crackingshow says:

    I’m confused by Paul. Is God saying through Paul that he prefers people to be single and never have any sex and babies? It seems strange that he says he who doesn’t give his virgin daughter in marriage does better than he who does when that decision reduces the number of christian women out there for men to marry. I also don’t understand why he says men who are not committed should not seek wives. Is God mad at me for trying to find a christian to marry because I’m not focusing on him enough? I don’t get it. I might be just be stupid.

    • SnapperTrx says:

      I think one of the key points is “if she is past her youth”. We aren’t talking about a young lady here, but one who is past the age where men might not consider her marriage material. Basically an “old maid” who is, perhaps, past prime child bearing years and would instead better be used in service to the Lord.

      Paul indicated in another verse that it is “good for a man not to marry” because a single man can dedicate all of his time and effort towards service to God while a married man must split his time and effort between a wife and service to God, but it is important to remember that Paul DID NOT condemn the man who wants to marry! In fact, he says that if a man cannot control his drive for sex he needs to marry a wife, if only for that reason!

      God is not angry at any man or woman who desires to marry. He instructed us to be fruitful and multiply, and gave us the vehicle in which to do that in marriage. Paul was simply making the point, but no where does he, Jesus or God condemn those who want to marry.

      • crackingshow says:

        I was a bit frustrated when I wrote this cos I’d just been out and there was a pretty non christian girl there who really likes me who I can’t touch and I got a bit triggered by AT’s article and reacted emotionally. There’s a christian girl I like who likes me but unfortunately she lives far away and is only here temporarily. Hum!

  2. SnapperTrx says:

    “God does not change, but He allows our understanding of scripture to change because the culture changes.”

    These are the words and thoughts of the modern, moderate Christian. Oh, sure, Gods commandments didn’t change, I mean, sure fathers have authority over their daughters and husbands have authority over their wives, but HOW we understand that scripture has changed because the culture of NOW is so much different than back then when women were oppressed and worth less than dogs and could be beaten or killed by their husbands at will for any old thing. Now that women are so emancipated (yet still oppressed by the patriarchy!) God lets our understanding and implementation of those commandments be different than back then. You see, God didn’t change, but we did, and He allows us grace for that! Yippee! I can disregard my father or my husbands instruction with reckless abandon and STILL be in line with scripture! God is SO GOOD!

  3. Renee Harris says:

    Sir
    Hope you and your women are well. What does Pat youth mean. And what are some of the dangers of entering into menopause as a virgin

  4. kryptonian51 says:

    I’m making this comment in here Toad so that you can make an IP check to show that I’m basically not YOU

    One of Dalrock’s lunatic deluded followers by the name of Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment (“Yac-Yac” is accusing me of being YOU and I don’t want to give that cowardly piece of shit any wiggle room to tarnish YOUR name or blog. His paranoid obsession that you might somehow be lurking on Dalrock’s blogs by using my handle still is actually quite funny

    Somehow there must be a way to show that I’m not you, but a separate poster?
    Of course the cowardly FAGGOT has blocked me so I can’t reach him directly

    • Don’t worry about it. We both know you aren’t me and “proving” it isn’t worth it to someone like you are describing.

      Dalrock has a long history of doing some really good work, but that’s generally the way it is with all infiltrators. When it came down to where the rubber meets the road he went full SJW gamma.

      • kryptonian51 says:

        he went full SJW gamma.

        Yup my thoughts exactly A.T….The very people Dalrock despises, the SJW’s, leftists, etc he has become, it’s actually quite sad to see

        Love your content, so I’ll be browsing through your material

        Take care

  5. siafutwo says:

    You are not giving proper weight to the part of the passage which reads “in view of the present distress”. Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor. 7 are for people in unusual situations, fleeing persecution and famine. It is not regular order. Regular order is “it is not good for man to be alone”.

    • You’re ignoring the two main points. First, in order for your feminist translation to be correct, we must accept that Paul directly contradicting his own instruction from 10 verses prior. Your “present distress” argument fails on this alone because he would not have given the “remain as you are” if what you are saying is correct.

      Second, if the woman is his betrothed then he has taken betrothal vows and she is legally his wife. The idea that Paul would advise a man that it’s good if he keeps his vows and better if he breaks them is preposterous.

      Just on the direct contradiction described your argument is ridiculous, but the idea that Paul would advise young men to violate their most solemn of vows is preposterous.

      • siafutwo says:

        How is my understanding feminist? How is what I’m saying equate with Paul advocating that men violate their vows?

        I think you misunderstood what I’m saying. Nowhere does what I said imply people can break their betrothal vows or that there is some sort of “contradiction”. You jumped to a strange conclusion.

  6. Nereus says:

    The best explanation I’ve heard of this passage comes from Edward Ridenour, whose views on “biblical marriage” overlap significantly with your own. Probably the only area of disagreement would be polygamy. But his take on the Corinthians 7 passage is that our modern confusion comes from unnaturally and culturally separating the marriage ceremony from the marriage consummation. “Married” status is not actually the vows or the signing of a marriage license, but the consummation act. If intercourse equals marriage in God’s eyes, then one explanation here would be that the passage speaks against the idolization of perpetual virginity or celibacy. Augustine later wrote much encouraging celibacy within marriage as the only proper and holy behavior. This passage then speaks against that idea and also shoots down the concept of “premarital sex” with one’s betrothed. Essentially, if you cannot wait until after the communal ceremonies and celebration to consummate your marriage vow, you’ve not sinned and are now married. If you have the willpower to wait for communal and cultural observances before you consummate, you do even better. This still meets your point of Paul not contradicting himself from 10 verses earlier, because having willpower to wait for normal observances is better on the community even if not required by God, but you still end up married.

    • “our modern confusion comes from unnaturally and culturally separating the marriage ceremony from the marriage consummation.”

      Yes, but the “cultural” part of this is because around 325-450 AD, the church starting teaching that (in line with Roman law) marriage was begun by consent rather than sex and it didn’t matter if a couple never had sex. And, in line with Roman law, which did not recognize or accept polygyny, multiple wives were first frowned upon and later forbidden by the church. This was done in complete contradiction to Scripture.

      Your language reveals the cultural aspects of this because God’s marriage ceremony is sexual intercourse (Gen. 2:24). The idea of the “marriage consummation” was added in order to lend authority to the public ceremony with witnesses that was later required by the church in order for a couple to be recognized as married. One reason it is so difficult for modern Christians to understand this is the language itself is based on the idea that a public ceremony with witnesses and vows is required in order to be married.

      The voluntary practice of betrothal was a negotiation with the father to get his daughter as a wife, setting the bride price to be paid and setting a period of time during which the daughter would be held apart so as to prove she was not pregnant prior to the marriage. The betrothal period was for the protection of everyone involved and there were serious consequences involved if the girl turned out to be pregnant (c.f. Deuteronomy 22:13-21).

      This betrothal process required that the man make vows (agreements) with the father (or guardian) and I find it hard to believe a father would not require the man to make a vow to the Lord to honor the betrothal agreement, given what was at stake. Regardless whether the vows were made to the father or to the Lord, once made the man is required to keep them and not violate them.

      “the passage speaks against the idolization of perpetual virginity or celibacy. Augustine later wrote much encouraging celibacy within marriage as the only proper and holy behavior. This passage then speaks against that idea and also shoots down the concept of “premarital sex” with one’s betrothed. Essentially, if you cannot wait until after the communal ceremonies and celebration to consummate your marriage vow, you’ve not sinned and are now married. If you have the willpower to wait for communal and cultural observances before you consummate, you do even better.”

      No. There actually is such a thing as premarital sex and that is when the bridegroom violates his vows and has sexual intercourse with his bride prior to the end of the betrothal period. The sex itself is not a sin, but the violation of his vows is definitely a sin. This is just one more way the church leaders could lie with a straight face because while premarital sex exists, it only applies to those who are formally betrothed to marry.

      However, the “premarital sex” does not make them married because the woman is not eligible to marry until the existing betrothal vows have been fulfilled, and I’m specifically talking about the betrothal period. In fact, only a betrothed couple could possibly have “premarital sex” because only a betrothed couple has betrothal vows that stand in the way and make such a violation of the vows a sin.

      It is the betrothal vows that make the betrothed virgin ineligible to marry any other man because she’s legally married, his wife, which puts him in authority over her. Unlike a virgin not betrothed, a betrothed virgin cannot be raped into marriage because she is not eligible to marry any other man due to the vows already taken. The same logic that says she’s not eligible to be married to any other man also says that she won’t be married to her betrothed husband with the act of sexual intercourse until the vows are fulfilled.

      The problem with your view on this is it’s a case of trying to make this about a bridegroom and his betrothed rather than recognize that the passage refers to a father and his daughter. It is extremely difficult for modern-day Christians to accept the authority of a father over his daughters and all that entails, but God does not change.

      Hermeneuticly speaking you cannot have God (speaking through Moses) saying that a man must keep his vows and then have Christ (speaking through Paul) saying that it’s good to keep the marital vows but better not to. This is a classic example of an antimomy. God does not contradict himself because God does not change and Jesus Christ is the Word made flesh, the same yesterday, today and forever.

      The point of the passage was summed up in verse 38: the virgin getting married was good, not getting married was better. Under your interpretation of this passage, either way they are married, but that is NOT what the passage is talking about. Your interpretation fails because according to what you’re saying there is no way the betrothed virgin is not married. That is completely contrary to the text and your interpretation is a case of eisegesis to avoid dealing with the issue of the father’s authority over his daughter.

      Again, this passage refers to a father’s authority over his daughter and the fact that he has the authority to give her in marriage or forbid her from marrying, according to his will in that matter and his alone. Feminism cannot tolerate this because it points to the Scriptural fact that men and women are not equal and never will be; as well as the fact that the virgin has no agency, which is why we have passages such as this intentionally misinterpreted by the Bible translators.

      • Nereus says:

        You seem to have mistaken me for a churchian and in responding to their typical sentiment missed my point: whether father authority is taught by 1 Corinthians 7.

        I do not disagree with your stance on father authority over a daughter, but only whether that is what is being taught in this passage. If feminists want to use 1Cor7 (BSB) to argue against father authority, then I agree with you that they are wrong.

        I indicated that my understanding comes from a man who separately came to many of the same conclusions as you regarding biblical marriage, particularly “God’s marriage ceremony is sexual intercourse (Gen 2:24).”

        You use “consummation” differently than expected. In Western civilization legal tradition prior to modern feminism, consummation referred to the act of intercourse, and a marriage lacking that could be dissolved as if the marriage never happened. Thus, my use of consummation was a euphemism for initial intercourse, which you argue and I agree constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes.

        Why then go on to argue that this is not the case for a betrothed couple? You offer no biblical prohibition other than the breaking of vows. The remedy for breaking of vows is to fulfill the vow, as you quote in Num 30:2. The delay in Hebrew betrothals tended to be either due to bride too young to consummate (addressed in 1 Cor 7:36, if my take is correct), or else due to delay in payment.

        My contention about whether the 1 Cor 7 passage is about fathers or bridegrooms is that if it is about fathers, then the Roman/Augustinian view of the superiority of celibacy/virginity over marriage is then taught in the Bible.

        But you quote the NASB which indicates that “daughter” is added in based on the “traditional reading” of the same Roman/Christian institutions you are denouncing, and you highlight that the original wording says let “them” marry rather than “her,” which is also problematic for the father/daughter view.

        Much of your writing interests me because of your avid stance on going back to what the Torah says, yet you object based on what you “find hard to believe” regarding what vows must be made or what the vows must contain.

        Paul’s context in Corinthians is also addressing a misconception about whether it was a sin for a virgin to marry (1 Cor 7:28, NASB), and the entire chapter is about proper boundaries of sexual activity, of which premarital would be an appropriate topic.

        If you do reach beyond what is written in Torah, why not point to some historic records? Mishnah is supposed to be the later written record of oral Rabbinic debates predating Christ (unlike Talmud), and Mishnah Kiddushin 1.1 states that a woman is acquired through money, document, or intercourse. Interpretations on this Mishnah find that premarital sex is not desirable, yet also not a violation of Torah, so long as it is between the betrothed. This is not God’s law, but illustrates what the people of the NT era likely understood from God’s law.

        So, if a bridegroom acquired a wife by document or money, but had not yet had intercourse, this arrangement was protected by vow. If the bridegroom broke his vow by taking his end of the contract (intercourse) prior to the time (assuming the girl was of sufficient age), then the remedy would be for him to immediately fulfill his end of the contract (pay up, do work, whatever was promised).

        I say you are correct that feminists twist scripture to deny the authority of men (fathers or husbands) over women, and they are wrong if they try to use 1 Cor 7 to do so. But making 1 Cor 7 about fathers and daughters then make Augustine’s teaching a biblical problem rather than mere erroneous human reasoning.

        • “Thus, my use of consummation was a euphemism for initial intercourse, which you argue and I agree constitutes a marriage in God’s eyes.”

          Unless there are vows that prevent the virgin from being eligible. In those cases the initial intercourse does not make them married because she was not eligible.

          “Why then go on to argue that this is not the case for a betrothed couple?”

          If a betrothal period is set, it is a period in which the bridegroom agrees not to touch his wife. The purpose was to ensure that there could be no chance that the bride is pregnant, which would have serious consequences for the father and the daughter. The father is representing her as a virgin. In addition, the betrothal period offers the bridegroom the certainty that any subsequent children are his. God places a great deal of importance on bloodlines.

          You say that the remedy for violation of a vow is to fulfill it, but in this case it cannot be fulfilled after it is broken because the vow in question was not to marry her, but to not touch her during the betrothal period. And there were consequences. Consider Deuteronomy 22:13-15:

          “13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, 14 and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ 15 then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate.”

          What was the evidence? The bloody sheet/garment.

          The betrothal process is voluntary and the details are all negotiable but once made the vows are requirements. Absent an agreement otherwise, there is no requirement that the man pay the brideprice prior to receiving his bride (Witness Jacob and Laben WRT Rachel. He got her immediately after doing the wedding week with Leah and had to serve another 7 years following that to pay for her).

          Because of the vows, the virgin is no longer an eligible virgin and if any other man were to have sex with her they would not be married (c.f. Deut. 22:23-27). Likewise, because of the vows that involve the betrothal period, the virgin is likewise not eligible to be married by the bridegroom prior to the time set certain that ends the betrothal period.

          “Paul’s context in Corinthians is also addressing a misconception about whether it was a sin for a virgin to marry (1 Cor 7:28, NASB)”

          Circular logic. You are claiming that your interpretation of this passage is evidence of Paul’s context in order to support your interpretation.

          “My contention about whether the 1 Cor 7 passage is about fathers or bridegrooms is that if it is about fathers, then the Roman/Augustinian view of the superiority of celibacy/virginity over marriage is then taught in the Bible.”

          And this is the problem, you misapprehend the teachings of Augustine/Jerome/Gregory.

          Two points: First, WRT virginity/celibacy, the passage is talking about virgin women under the authority of their fathers, not men. The mission of *men* is to be fruitful and multiply and the woman was created to be his helper in that mission. The man is under obligation to be fruitful, but as a father he has complete authority over his daughter. If he desires to give her to the church he can, just as he can decide to sell her into permanent slavery (c.f. Exodus 21:7-11).

          The second is that the “Augustinian view of the superiority of celibacy/virginity” was not a superiority over marriage, it was a superiority over what they perceived as the evil wickedness of sex and sexual pleasure. Sex was only tolerated *within* marriage and even then *only* for the purposes of procreation. Otherwise sex within marriage was considered a sin (venal) if the act was for pleasure. Therefore, if sex within marriage is a venal sin, sex outside marriage must be a mortal sin. For the Augustinian viewpoint we must look to history. From “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by Brundage:

          Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs. Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful. Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond.

          Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources. But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential.

          See “Theology For Men of the West: Fathers and Daughters” for a more complete explication of this.

          “But you quote the NASB which indicates that “daughter” is added in based on the “traditional reading” of the same Roman/Christian institutions you are denouncing, and you highlight that the original wording says let “them” marry rather than “her,” which is also problematic for the father/daughter view. “

          The traditional (meaning, “pre-feminist”) reading… Yes. And yes, while it literally says “let them marry” that in no way is problematic. She has to have a man in order to marry. You’re nitpicking in order to avoid reading it as father and daughter but you create an antinomy in the process and that isn’t allowed by proper hermeneutics.

          “If you do reach beyond what is written in Torah”

          I’m not and the point is Paul is not counseling or instructing the men that it’s OK to violate their vows because the Torah requires them to keep their vows. As far as the Mishnahs go, that is the traditions of men Christ rebuked when He said “In vain do you worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men,”

          In the end, you have still not dealt with the major problem with your interpretation of this, because no matter how you read it, the man does well if he marries the virgin and he does better if he does not marry her. Under your view, they are married either way, which is completely contrary to the text.

          • Nereus says:

            So what happens if the bridegroom rapes or seduces the bride, prior to the time of vow? The penalties in Deut 22 are only prescribed for “another man.” Torah is silent on what happens if the betrothed man does it. OT society was high-context, meaning common sense was expected and required. I’ve read ancient Rabbinical debates over a woman accused of not being a virgin on her wedding night, yet she defended herself saying her entire family line was known for not bleeding much on first intercourse, and this was accepted to declare her innocent. Is your take on Christ and Moses such that Christ would condemn those pharisees and have demanded death of the woman because the law is the law?

            Beyond Torah: Your first rebuttal based one point on what you personally find believable about wedding vows of that day, yet you provided no Torah or historical support. Torah does not specify what must or ought to be in a wedding vow, and I was not willing to disagree about what’s “believable” without researching what was actually typical of vows in that day, which is where I found the references to Mishnah Kid. 1.1. Christ’s comments are applicable if we raise oral Torah to the same authority as written Torah. They are not if we are simply looking at what was understood in that day about wedding vows. To force the point would be to say your modern judgement on what ought to be in wedding vows when Torah is silent trumps the actual practice and understanding of that time. When Christ was asked about divorce, he was being asked to decide between the camps of Hillel and Shammai, also mentioned in Mishnah Kid. 1.1. Christ did not simply denounce the debate. He answered from Torah showing which camp understood God’s intent.

            On resolving broken vows: the waiting period had a reason. If the groom violated the waiting period, he’d better demonstrate that waiting was no longer needed to meet his obligation: i.e. pay up now. Did he suddenly strike it rich? Or what if he and the father agreed that the waiting period was no longer necessary and wanted to modify the vow? Your reading seems to require as rigid an adherence to vows as Jephthah sacrificing his daughter, regardless of any future negotiation from either party or judicial remedy.

            Circular logic: this would mean I am using my conclusion as a premise, that I can only get there by bringing to the text what I want to prove; i.e. eisigesis. I simply read “But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned,” (1 Cor 7:28) and conclude that apparently the Corinthian church was worried that marriage itself or marriage of virgins counted as sin. If this is circular logic, then what is that verse actually clearly teaching such that I could not possibly understand it as I do unless I was already bringing that idea into the text?

            Ultimately, I don’t care whether the 1 Cor 7 passage is about fathers or grooms. If it is about fathers, so be it. I admit that verse 38 is the most challenging to my reading and I am curious to go back to Ridenour’s writing and see how he dealt with it. But I see horns of a dilemma here and am trying to resolve them. This goes back to Augustine, on which you quote Brundage to say I don’t know what I’m talking about. The systemic problem of academics is that they typically quote only other academics. I read the entire post you recommend, but half of Brundage’s assertions are cited to other academics rather than the primary source. If Augustine wrote so prolifically on the subject as Brundage says, why not just quote him directly and show Augustine in his own words? Have you ever directly worked through Augustine’s chain of reasoning on sex and marriage?

            Augustine himself reasons that the Bible says sin resides in our members. Organs of procreation do not obey conscious command, therefore that is evidence of sin, therefore acts of sex other than dutiful procreation are sin (On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 5-9). So the only acceptable reason for sex within marriage is dutiful procreation without enjoyment of the act. Yet in chapter 14 he concludes that procreation was only necessary prior to Christ, because since Christ, married believers can simply make converts of pagan children and need no longer raise up believing children of their own. So sex is never okay in marriage, according to Augustine rather than Brundage telling us about Augustine. Augustine goes on to write an entire book to a notable new Christian encouraging him on how to maintain complete celibacy within his marriage. And Augustine’s conclusion supported right there in the father/daughter reading of 1 Cor 7: “he who gives his own virgin daughter in marriage does well, and he who does not give her in marriage will do better.” So from Paul, a father never granting consent for his virgin daughter to marry is better than he who does grant consent. Virginity trumps the marriage bed, and Augustine is right.

          • 1. You are still defending an interpretation in which either way, the virgin is married. You say:
            I simply read “But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned,” (1 Cor 7:28)

            That is NOT what the text says and you’re bifurcating, inserting a second person into that. According to the text (look at it in the Greek) if the virgin marries, good. If the virgin does NOT marry, better. Under your reading the virgin is married either way.

            2. Brundage is fluent in archaic Latin, which is required to read Augustine, Jerome, Gregory and others. While he does cite other academics, he liberally cites Augustine and their cronies from their own works in Latin.

            I’ve read Augustine and if I had to encapsulate his error, it would be in “On the Free Choice of the Will” Book 1, 1.3.6.15-16

            AUGUSTINE: Then tell me first of all why you think it is evil to commit adultery. Is it because the law forbids it?

            EVODIUS: It is not evil because it is forbidden by the law. Instead, it is forbidden by the law because it is evil.

            AUGUSTINE: What if someone were to exaggerate the delights of adultery, pressing us insistently why we judge it to be evil and worthy of condemnation? Do you think that people who now want to understand, and not merely to believe, should take cover in the authority of the law? Well, for my part I believe as you do. I resolutely believe that adultery is evil, and I proclaim that all societies ought to believe so.

            Note that nowhere did God provide an explanation for why He forbid adultery any more than he chose to explain why pigs are unclean. What Augustine is doing is speaking for God when God was silent and that is arrogance. Further, this attitude went to the point of adding to the moral law, which is an attempt to correct God.

            Augustine himself reasons that the Bible says sin resides in our members. Organs of procreation do not obey conscious command, therefore that is evidence of sin, therefore acts of sex other than dutiful procreation are sin (On Marriage and Concupiscence, ch. 5-9)

            Complete and utter horseshit.

            The mission of man is to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth. To subdue the earth. To rule over everything in it.

            This is why men have a physical need for sex. The unconscious reactions of men’s sexual organs is not evidence of sin, it is evidence that God hardwired the need to procreate into man. Men have a need to compete, fight and conquer because that too is part of man’s mission. Men have a need to be in control for the same reason, even if it’s just control of the TV remote.

            Virginity trumps the marriage bed

            1. Only if the purpose is the virgin is dedicated to the Lord for the furtherance of the Kingdom of Heaven.

            2. WRT to this instruction, only when we’re talking about women, not men.

            3. Only at the sole discretion of the father and then only if he is firm in his own mind about it.

            4. Only until the death of the father, at which time the virgin is free from his authority.

            and Augustine is right.

            No, not at all.

          • Nereus says:

            Are you reading the verse I cited? 1 Cor 7:28 (NASB) says in full: “28 But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Yet such will have [q]trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.” It sounds like you are assuming I am misquoting 7:38, which is 10 verses later.

          • You are correct. I thought you were quoting the verse that summarized the passage we were talking about.

            What I said still applies though, because you never addressed that portion of your argument.

  7. bob k. mando says:

    what does it look like when a woman rejects all masculine authority?

    so, when asked, “What reproductive Rights do Men have?”, she immediately start listing Men’s Patriarchal Responsibilities.

    and then immediately segues into Women having the ‘Right’ to murder the Man’s child at will ( de Jure before birth, de Facto after ), and being willing to kill themselves if not permitted that ‘Right’.

    it’s a Satanic outlook, all the way around.

  8. kryptonian51 says:

    @Artisanal Toad

    Hey do you have any articles you can point to which I can read which will answer this dilemma:
    I believe as you do that sex=marriage, but I got a lot of flack from Dalrock and others who believe that unless you get legally married, i.e with a marriage certificate/license and or say wedding vows to each other, then you are not truly married and are committing fornication……They believe that couples who live together in a serious, monogamous relationship i.e boyfriend and girlfriend need to stop sinning and get married
    I vehemently disagree with them, and insist there is no “special sauce” needed to make legit those unions
    Is Dalrock right and I’m wrong?
    Your thoughts and any material you have on this subject will be much appreciated

  9. Lee says:

    I recommend you go read the person who “Nereus” referenced in his posts – Edward Ridenour. In my opinion, his theology is the best and most biblical on the subject of biblical marriage. You can find his articles on mbgod.com.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s