Answering Christianity Research Center

History and social attitudes

Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty.  The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.
In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.
The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) "made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."


A small number of Italian and German states introduced an age of consent in the 16th century, setting it at 12 years. Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.

In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895.Female reformers and advocates of social purity initiated a campaign in 1885 to petition legislators to raise the legal age of consent to at least 16, with the ultimate goal to raise the age to 18. The campaign was successful, with almost all states raised the age of consent to 16–18 by 1920.
Social (and the resulting legal) attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times. For example, while ages from 10 to 13 were typically acceptable in Western countries during the mid-19th century, the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century were marked by changing attitudes towards sexuality and childhood resulting in raising the ages of consent to ages generally ranging from 16 to 18.

"They couldn't go away as they were supposed to ... have to deal with that fundamental question, - what does this mean that the one that we had all of these expectations about has been crucified? How do we deal with this, not merely the end of this life, but the shameful end of this life? And, the amazing thing is, they said, "Hey, Pilate's right - he was the King of the Jews, and moreover, God has vindicated this claim, that he is the King of the Jews, by raising him from the dead." Now, this is where the Jesus movement properly understood, which is to become Christianity, begins, with trying to explain that hard fact.... And so the early Christians, as proper Jews, they begin to search the scriptures, [looking for] what clues are hidden here which no one has noticed before.... They begin to find promises in scripture of an anointed king who will come at the end of days, a notion which they share with many other Jews, at the same time. So, this is where it all begins, with this kind of interpretive process, which of course goes in many different directions."

9- concluding the chapter MESSIANOLOGY IN EARLY JUDAISM AND EARLY RABBINICS :

In this authoritative compilation of Jewish laws that determine the individual's and the community's way of life,the Messiah as a supernatural or eschatological figure does not make an appearance. The figure of messiah remains rooted in sociopolitical realities—viz. in the realities of post-70 Judaism."' There is hardly a trace of a utopian superstructure. Viewed against the backdrop of later configurations of the messianic idea in Judaism, and the more so in Christianity, we may indeed define that phenomenon with W D. Davies' "a paradoxical messianism."'It may be surmised that this inherent realism caused those Jewish sources not to offer a particularized description of the messianic age. Due to its predominant restorative thrust the future eon is in essence conceived as a vastly improved replica of a Status experienced in the past which is imprinted in the collective memory. Therefore it does not stand in need of being spelled out in detail. The messianic era is not characterized by a total revamping of man's nature and societal structures, nor of the Constitution of the universe. Rather it is seen as a sublime reenactment of the favorable conditions which obtained in the idealized period of the united monarchy under David and Solomon.
The memory of those days inspired later biblical writers, and upon it they modeled their vision of the future. In doing so they drew explicidy on past experience:Was it not this that YHWH proclaimed through the prophets of old, while Jerusalem was populous and peaceful, as were the cities around her, and the Negeb and the Shephelah?. . . These are the words of YHWH I will rescue my people from the countries of the east and the west, and bring them back to live in Jerusalem . . . [unlike] before that time . . . [when] no one could go about his affairs in peace because of enemies . . . but now . . .there shall be sowing in peace, the vine shall yield its fruit and the seil its produce . . . with all these things I will endow the survivors of this people.You, house of Judah and house of Israel, . . . I will save you, and you shall become the symbol of a blessing. Courage! Do not be afraid. (Zech 7:7-8:13,cf. Gen 12:2-3)

1- Besides the Old Testament, We have numerous early Jewish sources that portray the Messiah, variously,as one who will serve as the eschatological high priest (the Dead SeaScrolls, the T12P), or as the consummate benevolent and all-powerful king(PssSol 17). Numerous functions are sometimes attributed to the Messiah:He will judge the wicked (PssSol 17, 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 40), destroy them(PssSol 17, 18; 4Ezra 12, 2Bar 72; c f Isa 11), deliver God's people (PssSol17, 4Ezra 12; c f Zech 9), and/or reign in a blessed kingdom (PssSol 17, 18;2Bar 40; c f Ps 2).

2 - Old Testament expectations of a new David are probably to be understood in terms of a continuing Davidic line. There is little indication that any of these prophets envisioned a final Davidic ruler who would actually rule for all time to come,thus obviating the need for the continuation of the dynastic line. The language of some of the prophecies is open to that interpretation, and such a reading was eventually given to them, but such passages as Jer 33:14-26 and Ezekiel 4 0 - 4 8 indicate that the dynastic understanding was the dominant interpretation of such promises as late as the exihc period, and the repeated references to  "the house of David," in Third Zechariah (Zech12:7-12; 13:1) suggest that this interpretation remained dominant well into the postexilic period.

3- The new Jerusalem is far more prominent in prophetic visions of the future than the Davidic king, but such eschatological hopes are not specifically messianic.

4- There are number of passages as not really envisioning a future king in their original contexts, Once the expectation of a new Davidic king became an important hope in large circles of the Israelite people, these passages would be subject to eschatological reinterpretation, to new readings that were genuinely prophetic.

5 - The later expectations of a priestly Messiah can be traced back to the promises of the restoration of the priesthood found in Jeremiah 33 and in Zechariah's oracles concerning the high priest Joshua.

All criticism are always welcomed!   This is how we learn and improve and cleanse the falsehood and errors from us.