What about the generally accepted idea that Mary was about 14 and Joseph was in his 30's? Not that they had sex, but that it was accepted n Culture and God's eyes for a 14 year old to be courted by a 30 something.
What about it? You've set forth that it was accepted. So be it.
It's the idea of "a position of authority" and was that how Jewish men were, in actual life, in the 1st century? I think so.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
A 14-year-old girl was a legal adult in Jewish tradition--she was bat mitzvah'd at 12.
In Romeo and Juliet, Lord Capulet thinks Juliet is too young to be married--she's not quite fourteen. But his wife thinks she should be ready for marriage, because when she was Juliet's age, Juliet had already been born. Lord Capulet, by contrast, was an old man. Shakespeare wrote Romeo and Juliet in the early 1590s, and the ages of the two young lovers would not have raised any eyebrows in that society.
In Canada, the age of consent was 14 until 2008, when it was raised to 16, and in some provinces, it was still possible for a younger person to marry with parental consent (until 2015, when the minimum age for marriage was made 16 across the country).
So there's nothing odd about thinking that, theoretically, Mary could have been a married woman with children when she was 14. That was more or less the norm for the majority of human history. An adolescent girl was sexually mature, capable of having children, and didn't need a university degree and a career to have a fulfilling life. (Not that such was open to her--I daresay our present state of affairs is better in that respect.)
Life expectancy in 10 AD was 20 to 35 years. This may be why it was commonly accepted for girls to marry young, young men were expected to be able to feed and care for a family before they married.
Things were very different in that day and even just 100 years ago. I believe Mrs. Hyles was well under 18 when she was married which was commonly accepted..
The laws are in place to protect the young lady in an unmarried relationships. The minium age to get married is differen and have varied over time and from state to state.
A large age gap is still commonly accepted today. A 20 year difference is not uncommon amuong older men.
Look at how many wealthy men divorce or are widowed and marry much younger women. Several well known preachers married ladies who were much younger than them after their wives died, same goes for missionaries.
Things were very different in that day and even 100 years ago. I believe Mrs. Hyles was under 17 when she was married.
Last edited:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but were not most marrages arranged back then and it was completely up to the parents.
Culture and norms change over time.
Interesting that India has one of the best success rates for marrages and they are almost exclusivly under the arranged marrege system. I assume in generally not accepted to divorce in that culture.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,411
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
The idea of a "position of authority" is to protect women from sexual exploitation by men who are in a position to influence them by demanding sexual favours in exchange for benefits or avoiding negative consequences (i.e. the traditional definition of sexual harassment). Such men are the exception rather than the norm in a society of equals. In the first century, women essentially belonged to their fathers or husbands and had no authority to speak of. They were given in marriage to whomever their fathers thought economically, socially, or politically expedient.
I know all these things. What I am getting at is this: The idea of Men in positions of authority always being guilty is not true.
I posted a link to Julie Roys podcast. It was a woman who was in her 30's. She had a long affair with her pastor. She repented, told her husband, went public, did the right thing in confronting him. Then years later she said it was not an affair, but Adult Clergy Sexual Abuse, and she had absolutely no guilt.
It is this idea that possessing authority makes the man immediately guilty, which I disagree with.
Correct. Legal facts are not always actual facts. Something that is legally a rape, is not always an actual rape. Many who are still legal children, are in reality adults.
And something that can legally be classified as an assault, is not really an assault, especially when no real harm or emotional distress results.
I'm not arguing for a change in the statutes. I'm just saying that when establishing the truth of a matter, legal imaginations are irrelevant.
Not 'may be responsible.' Are responsible.
Your statement regarding the boss would fall under Child Seduction (I.C. 35-42-4-7(t)) but would only apply to the 50-year-old and not the 19-year-old, as they are within four years of each other. That law in 2012 was pretty rudimentary and did not include the definitions or definitive wording that it has now. I posted that section of the statute as it stood in 2012 here: https://www.fundamentalforums.org/threads/the-girl-s.1492/post-270601. Most of the changes to that statute resulted from the coaches and teachers who were "dating" their students. We had about eight in our county, two of whom were middle school coaches.
Last edited: