06-21-2016, 01:59 PM
I think that if you were correct about the interpretation of that law, I'd be inclined to agree that its equity is also particular to the circumstances. But I don't think that's what that law was saying. Earlier in the passage rapists are shown as being killed because "it is like a man who attacks and murders his neighbor." So I think a better understanding of that passage is that a man who SEDUCES a woman into sex must marry her, while a rapist is killed. See here for further discussion (This one was not written by me) https://reformedtheonomy.wordpress.com/2016/03/14/the-punishment-for-rape-and-bad-translations/
As for rejecting Jesus, I understand your point but I don't think that's the way the OT law was intended to work. Personal heart problems were not punishable by the State. External blasphemy (which is more than personally professing unbelief) is. As is preaching false gospels to other people. I know that seems harsh to people today but that's more because of modern norms than anything else. The Reformers did not think so and even often took it for granted (if you read men like Gillespie and Rutherford you'll know what I'm talking about, not to mention the often twisted matter of Michael Servetus, who absolutely deserved the penalty the Genevan Council gave him)
Yes. I am. Because that's what God says, and I care more about what God thinks than other people :)
I don't see how concubinage, whatever we might say about it, is relevant here. You're talking about a case where a man arranges a marriage (ie. makes a covenant with) more than one woman. I don't really see Biblical basis to criminalize these, and while I think they go against normative Biblical design, they are irregularly valid once entered into. But prostitution is not that. Prostitution is a form of fornication or adultery,both of which were criminal offenses.