This is not really worth it’s own post given the last two posts. But here we go anyway.
The example that just popped into my head where Sex is not Marriage even in Genesis is Judah and Tamar. It also gives us some background on what is considered not marriage = sex.
Genesis 38:11 Judah then said to his daughter-in-law Tamar, “Live as a widow in your father’s household until my son Shelah grows up.” For he thought, “He may die too, just like his brothers.” So Tamar went to live in her father’s household.
12 After a long time Judah’s wife, the daughter of Shua, died. When Judah had recovered from his grief, he went up to Timnah, to the men who were shearing his sheep, and his friend Hirah the Adullamite went with him.
13 When Tamar was told, “Your father-in-law is on his way to Timnah to shear his sheep,” 14 she took off her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil to disguise herself, and then sat down at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah. For she saw that, though Shelah had now grown up, she had not been given to him as his wife.
15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. 16 Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, “Come now, let me sleep with you.”“And what will you give me to sleep with you?” she asked.
17 “I’ll send you a young goat from my flock,” he said.“Will you give me something as a pledge until you send it?” she asked.
18 He said, “What pledge should I give you?”“Your seal and its cord, and the staff in your hand,” she answered. So he gave them to her and slept with her, and she became pregnant by him. 19 After she left, she took off her veil and put on her widow’s clothes again.
20 Meanwhile Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite in order to get his pledge back from the woman, but he did not find her. 21 He asked the men who lived there, “Where is the shrine prostitute who was beside the road at Enaim?”
“There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here,” they said.
22 So he went back to Judah and said, “I didn’t find her. Besides, the men who lived there said, ‘There hasn’t been any shrine prostitute here.’”23 Then Judah said, “Let her keep what she has, or we will become a laughingstock. After all, I did send her this young goat, but you didn’t find her.”
24 About three months later Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar is guilty of prostitution, and as a result she is now pregnant.”Judah said, “Bring her out and have her burned to death!”25 As she was being brought out, she sent a message to her father-in-law. “I am pregnant by the man who owns these,” she said. And she added, “See if you recognize whose seal and cord and staff these are.”
26 Judah recognized them and said, “She is more righteous than I, since I wouldn’t give her to my son Shelah.” And he did not sleep with her again.
Presumably, sex via prostitution was not considered sex as marriage. This means that there is something else involved in creation of marriage, and I believe it to be the moral agency in making the marriage covenant along with sex.
John 4:16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
17 “I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”
The same is true with the Samaritan woman at the well. She was married several times, but the man she was living with and presumably having sex with was not her husband. Sex was not marriage in this last instance, even if she was able to be married several times before.
It’s also common knowledge that many of the other probably prostitutes of the Bible such as Rahab were not married, but were eventually able to be. Both Rahab and Tamar were included in the line of Jesus for being righteous despite their pasts.
The vast majority of sex outside of marriage today may very well be termed prostitution or whoredom. In other words, the people doing it are not trying to get married. They are shrine prostitutes for the temple of hedonism.
Thus, it seems to be that despite what regulations have been put on marriage from the Bible to the Church to secular sources until now, that there is an understanding that some type of moral agency agreement of a marriage must be in place in addition to sex to create a marriage. The sex = marriage commenters like to gloss over the fact that most of the common law marriages in the past were people who agreed to live together as married or in the Bible had their parents, themselves, or a servant (e.g. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc) negotiate with the father for the bride and sometimes agreement of the bride.
Maybe the agreement to live together as married didn’t have a ceremony, vows, or other things that we traditionally associate with weddings now, but they did have that understanding that they were married along with the sex. The moral agency of the marriage agreement in particular seems to be the dividing line between the teenagers who want to be “married” just to have sex and the father annulment of the potential marriage in the Law of Moses. Those would not be true marriages but the ones where people are exercising moral agency are.
Christianity and masculinity 
When I go to a wedding, there is a discernible change when the officiant declares that they are married. They weren’t married before, but now there is a new family standing right there. You can’t detect this new reality physically. Which leads me to understand that it is a spiritual thing.
That change still occurs even when the new spouses have been having sex with each other before the wedding.
Deep Strength,
I don’t see that you’ve cleared things up, but have just provided some instances of confusing or sinful situations, which when examined actually prove that sex either results in a marriage or a capital sin.
Consider this: The case of Judah and Tamar is a case of Levirate marriage, but since two of three brothers died and Judah would not give his remaining son, Shelah, to Tamar as was customary, and as Judah had promised, Tamar took matters into her own vagina and slept with his father instead. Which while technically being a (non-blood-relative) form of in-law-incest, was declared by Judah to be a “more righteous” deception than his own betrayal of Tamar. Judah and Tamar were “married” via a variation of Levirate marriage.
Deuteronomy 25:5 If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the wife of the dead man shall not be married outside the family to a stranger. Her husband’s brother shall go in to her and take her as his wife and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And the first son whom she bears shall succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel.
Tamar was not burned as a Harlot, but was instead cleared of the charge of sex outside of legitimate marriage, by having proven her own Levirate marriage to Judah, instead of to his remaining son Shelah whom he had never provided to Tamar as he should have. Judah consented to have sex with her, not even knowing who she was, and she consented to bear his offspring.
Levirate marriage was seemingly only a temporary sexual relationship, until it provided a male heir. And Judah had already accomplished that job when Tamar was found to be pregnant by him, and brought forth twins, Perez and Zerah. Perez is a father many times removed of both King David and Jesus Christ who is not illegitimate in His lineage, as the Pharisees once slandered Him.
John 8:41b Then they said to Jesus, “We were not born as a result of immorality! We have only one Father, God himself.”
It seems that as your beliefs evolve, in your newfound confusion, still not wanting to fully realize that sex is very simply an earthly bond of flesh (a marriage of two flesh into one) or else a capital crime. You seem far too quick to make Jesus Christ into the illegitimate bastard son of an unwed mother, like the Pharisees claimed. Perhaps you do this to uphold the various whoring churches claims of power over marriage, instead of allowing marriage to be an act of nature and God’s natural law, which Jesus Himself said, “God joins together”, before there was any church which eventually began to usurp “control” over God’s automatic joining of marriages, well over a millennium later.
Amnon’s rape and subsequent separation from of his half sister was eventually punished by his death. As Derek has explained elsewhere.
Rahab was a prostitute in Jericho. All of the people of that area would have sought refuge inside that walled city to avoid otherwise being exterminated by the Israelites as they were doing to all the people of the land as they were commanded by God to exterminate all such people. The Israelite spies promised to deliver only Rahab and her father’s house alive. The rest of the city’s people were killed. She and her father’s house escaped death only by her actions and the Israelite people’s vow to her. Every other person she ever would have slept with was exterminated, since every man, woman, child, and even animal, in the city was slain. So, when Rahab eventually got married into the lineage of Jesus Christ, she would have had no living former sex partners, and thus her marriage was not adulterous nor immoral.
There is an explanation for all of your doubts and confusion, if you want to find the truth of marriage out.
Pingback: Marriage isn't Magic, Part 2 - Derek L. Ramsey
Jesus said, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
To espouse the truth you have to believe the words of Jesus, that God our Father joins marriages together, not some other entity.
Romans 3:3b Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, and every man a liar, as it is written, “That thou mightest be justified in thy words, and overcome, when thou art judged.”
We have to let every churchman, even the pope, be a liar and Jesus Christ the Word of God be true. If you want your life and marriage to be judged as being right you need to operate according to God’s published standard, not the straying church’s ever evolving standards.
We live in an adulterous age where churches wrongly declare young lovers to be “fornicators”, “unmarried”, and “living in sin”, and they usually encourage them to separate those one-flesh relationships and then to later be “married” in a church to some other person while their God-joined natural mate still lives, rejected, according to false teaching propagated by religious leaders who lack understanding and condone such lawlessness.
Let the light of Jesus Christ’s words shine into your heart making these things plain.
Ephesians 5:13(ESV & YLT) But when anything is exposed by the light, it becomes visible, 14 wherefore he saith, “Arouse thyself, thou who art sleeping, and arise out of the dead, and the Christ shall shine upon thee.” 15 Look carefully then how you walk, not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the best use of the time, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.
@ Sharkly
Correct. I’ve already gone over Genesis 2 in this post which shows how God the Father is giving Eve to Adam. This is the Father giving Eve to Adam, and also Adam’s marital agreement by naming Eve and taking her to be his wife with sex. It is both of these that form the marital covenant much like Abraham had a servant to negotiate for Rebecca’s hand in marriage for Isaac.
The sex = marriage proponents often assert this as an example where Isaac married his wife by taking her into his tent and having sex with her but conveniently forget about that.
Secondly, you’re missing the point of the Judah and Tamar story. The point is not that Levirate marriage exists and it’s temporary. The point is that prostitution exists and that sex with a prostitute is not equal to marriage. The woman at the well is another example of this which you did not address.
Yes, I agree that one flesh via 2 Corinthians 6 brings about a bond that should only be with a husband and wife, but it is not marriage without the agreement of marriage.
Third, there is no ever evolving belief or confusion. My belief is consistent with Genesis 2 and the rest of the evidence that sex alone does not make a marriage.
All covenants in the Bible are by agreement — via moral agency which is why I pointed that out — and blood or sex in the case of marriage. Noah, Abraham, Jesus, etc. There is no reason why marriage is any different, especially when marriage is equated with Jesus’ New Covenant with Christians as an analogy for marriage: Christ:Church::husband:wives.
Including the obvious example above with Jesus:Church::husbands:wives, I’ve provided many examples that have yet to be debunked such as the father not allowing marriage where a woman is seduced, the fact that prostitution is not synonymous with marriage, and so on.
The confusion is because you guys are not recognizing that God the Father is giving Eve to Adam and Adam is accepting this agreement in Genesis 2. Once you understand that, the rest of the marriages in Genesis fall into alignment and it’s easy to understand why there are exceptions in the Law and prostitution does not constitute marriage. You guys are getting hung up on the specific “one flesh” verse without examining the rest of the context of the passage.
@ jvangeld
Yup, and it’s also why prostitution is not marriage.
Yes, the one flesh union with a prostitute is something that should only be done in marriage, but sex with a prostitute does not make a marriage.
This is a syllogism fallacy.
Pingback: Why the South Lost the Civil War (and Why It Matters a Great Deal Today) Part I | okrahead
There are lots of case scenarios that could be used to argue that Sex = Marriage or Sex ≠ Marriage. The Sex = Marriage paradigm is a very basic but fundamental understanding of marriage, whereas the Sex ≠ Marriage argument is based on ecclesiastical regulations, technicalities, and odd case examples. I believe a truer concept of marriage is a union which glorifies God and accomplishes His purposes for marriage, but this concept is also similarly vague.
Recall what I reported in A Concise History of Marriage Regulations (2023/6/12). Back when the Sex = Marriage paradigm was predominant, this is how people defined marriage:
I would say “agency” is the force of will behind (1) and (2). However, even in the case where two young people were married against their will, the marriage was considered valid, even by themselves. I suppose this could be called collective or group agency.
OTOH, parental consent was not a factor in defining marriage itself. So your argument about the father giving the bride to the groom as an essential element of marriage is Biblical, but historically, it is weak. It is even weaker these days, as it is merely a formality. Women do not hold themselves to the authority of either their father or the church.
The woman at the well is a curious case. And the verse John 4:18 seems to show Jesus using some kind of wordplay. She is said to have had five ἄνδρας (andras) (which could mean: men, betrotheds, male guardians, husbands) … and then Jesus says: and now that which you hold to, you have not being your ἀνήρ (anér). (which could also mean: man, betrothed, male guardian, husband) So, Jesus’ turn of phrase is a seeming contradiction, “that which you have, you do not have”. And it could seemingly mean quite a number of different possible things including:
1: The man you now have you don’t exclusively possess as husband
2: The male guardian who is now yours, you don’t really own him
3: The man you now cling to is not even your betrothed
4: The man your heart is now set on, that man does not belong to you
5: The betrothed you’re now with is not your husband
6: (NKJV) The one whom you now have is not your husband
and (although I doubt it) it could even possibly be twisted to mean …
7: The man you are now linked with, as yours, is not really a man
It is entirely possible she had five husbands who all died leaving her broke and reduced to becoming a concubine. Three of the Gospels recorded the Sadducees recounting the story of a woman who married a man who shortly died and then she had Levirate marriage with six of his brothers who all died or were killed in some way, until she finally died. If that Jewess was married to seven brothers and never had a son, who knows all that could have happened with the Samaritan woman? But due to the flexibility of the original wording it is hard to pin down what Jesus’s seemingly contradictory phrase truly meant. There may have been a bit of humor used, that we don’t now get, or Jesus possibly used a now lost figure of speech.
I think the objections you’ve brought up, have been addressed, but you just choose to see marriage as a more complex covenant where others either see the blood covenant of sex as making people mates and one flesh or else add in some tacit agreement or vows. A vow is a one sided affair. In the Genesis account of Adam and his “Woman”, the woman does not speak until she is recorded speaking with the Serpent. God did not record her giving any vow. FWIW
Ruth got “married” without the permission of a father or brother. Boaz secured the option to be her Levirate husband from the kinsman who would have been next in line to “redeem” her former husband’s posterity from extinction. One tradition claims that Boaz, a very wealthy man, was already married when he took Ruth.
Prostitution does join the two into one flesh, as the Bible tells us. However prostitution falls under “sexual immorality” or else adultery, and is a capital offense either way. Marriage does not have to evolve into some church or state or community sanctioning of what God Himself joins together. If through natural intercourse Holy God joins whoremongers and harlots into one flesh, against their own preference, what more can a church or licensing bureau add to the natural and unavoidable consequences of us being God’s creation and subject to His design? If churches actually cared about God’s law, they’d be demanding that the adulterous and sexually immoral be put to death.
The argument seems to be a semantic one, quibbling over words, regarding some perceived difference between various biblical terms like “union”, “one flesh”, “marriage”, and “covenant” and even later church assigned terms like “sacrament”.
“Secondly, you’re missing the point of the Judah and Tamar story. The point is not that Levirate marriage exists and it’s temporary. The point is that prostitution exists and that sex with a prostitute is not equal to marriage.”
So are you then saying that Jesus Christ is an illegitimate byproduct of prostitution? Or are you admitting that Judah and Tamar had sex and were thus “Married”? Judah twice assumed she was a harlot, but was wrong both times:
Genesis 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, because she had covered her face.
Genesis 38:24 And it came to pass, about three months after, that Judah was told, saying, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot; furthermore she is with child by harlotry.” So Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!”
The Bible never says nor implies that Tamar actually committed prostitution. Judah assumed that, condemned her to burning, but was proven very wrong in an epic self own. Judah then declared her to be more innocent than himself, for wrongly refusing to give her his last son for sex and levirate marriage. Which, if Judah had still viewed her as a harlot, he should have still burned her to death, and perhaps himself as well. But he abruptly realized that he and Tamar had both slyly fulfilled the Jewish covenant of Levirate marriage. Tamar had outfoxed Judah to still get a dose of his family semen and to become the Levirate wife of Judah so that Jesus could still be the fully legitimate (by Levirate marriage) Lion of the tribe of Judah.
@ Jack
I generally agree that sex = marriage is ideal. That is those that intend to have sex live as if they were married once they start having sex – they stay together permanently and act out what God intended for marriage.
Though I do somewhat disagree with your second paragraph. Historically, in the Bible it mattered a lot at least with the examples we are given with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Also, much of arranged marriage is similar and that was common in the Bible as well as through the vast majority of cultures. It’s not like arranged marriage was necessarily a be-all end-all either, as in many cultures the potential groom and bride do get some sort of veto option.
Posting with permission of author of blog:
(1) “that FAITH by which the Man and Woman bind themselves to each other to live as Man and Wife”, (2) an exchange of binding promises (which alone were respected in courts of law)
This is exactly what is denoted by the wedding along with the public recognition of the marriage. While church recognition of marriage is 16th century – I do not know of any civilization or culture which does not have some kind of wedding ceremony – African; Chinese; Indian; Kazakh, Peruvian etc. (I am willing to stand corrected on this) It is this wedding ceremony that differentiates the children born in wedlock as being legitimate. Women throughout history did not go wandering around alone. They are part of tribes. And men seek societal sanction from those tribes before sleeping with the woman.
If sex=marriage why is there no culture / civilization in known human history WITHOUT a wedding ritual?
Why are weddings so important that it is a universal thing? Which suggests God’s design and not a man-made construct?
Posting with permission of author of this blog:
At the time of Judah and Tamar – there was no Mosaic law and therefore NO LEVIRATE marriage. What probably happened was that there was some kind of custom that was prevailing in the culture of the time which was later clarified / ratified in Mosaic law
We should be careful about extrapolating the Mosaic law to events / people that came BEFORE it. Examples – Cain probably married a sister or niece. Abraham married his half sister (Sarah and he shared the same father). Jacob married 2 sisters. All these relationships were BANNED in Mosaic law but were held as valid marriages at the time.
Coming to weddings – just because a wedding is not mentioned in the case of Isaac, does not mean there was not one. It just means the Bible does not mention it. Jacob and Samson had weddings. Jesus attended a wedding in Cana.
In the absence of weddings – what determines the legitimacy of children? If adultery carried the death penalty – how is a man to know if a woman is married in the absence of a wedding? For advocates of Sex=Marriage – in the case of multiple sexual relationships – a) Are all those sexual relationships counted as marriages (polygamy / polyandry) b) Is the first relationship counted as marriage and subsequent ones as adultery or c) Is the last relationship counted as marriage and previous ones divorces?
The biggest challenge with Sex=Marriage is rape. And bottomline, it comes down to this – advocates of Sex=Marriage believe that a woman’s consent to sex is irrelevant. While that certainly may be a grey area in the case of a married woman (as a husband has authority over a woman’s body as per I Corinthians 7:4) – it is hard to extrapolate that to mean that a woman does not have the right to consent to being married.
Let us examine some such cases in the Bible
Why was Rebekah’s consent requested – to agree to the marriage with Isaac? (Genesis 24:58)
Why did Shechem send his father to ask for Dinah’s hand in marriage? He had already raped her? If sex=marriage was he not already married to her? Why go through the drama of circumcision – just for a wedding? Unless he wanted LEGITIMACY for the sexual relationship
Why did Tamar ask Amnon to speak to her father to have him be wedded to her. If sex=marriage, she could have just slept with him. Why go through the trauma of rape? Why ask for the legitimacy of him being wedded to her before she slept with him?
Why is it that in Deuteronomy 22 – if a virgin is raped in the field – the man is given the DEATH penalty. She was only betrothed but still a virgin. If sex=marriage, hy raping her he just married her? Why is that marriage not recognised as legal – instead man is given DEATH PENALTY. Unless to be betrothed / wedding – these things have validity
In the case of Judges 23 – the men of Benjamin kidnapped the daughters of Shiloh – there is no record of them having sex with them. According to Jewish law (Deuteronomy 21:11-13_– a man who took a woman captive in war was required to wait a month before he married her. Why all the convincing needed in v22 to their fathers and brethren. If sex=marriage, they just needed to rape them. Unless – the convincing was to let them be WEDDED to the women they kidnapped – to grant legitimacy to the relationship!
Just wanted to add:
I do ask my husband about these things and as said before we stand by “One man and one wife for life.” We both believe that sex is RATIFICATION of the marriage covenant.
We believe, have BOTH lived it and teach that sex should be CONFINED to the marital bed. This is the heart of God which wants us to be HOLY. Any sex out of the marital bed leads to defilement and while grace is given to those who repent, the heart of God is for us to OBEY him.
To that extent – we both believe Sex=Marriage (for us it was!!! And it is the Biblical way). But we must be careful not to extrapolate marriage to sinful relationships – that in my opinion does not reflect the HOLINESS and heart of God in this area.
When multiple sexual relationships are equated to multiple MARRIAGES, this defiles the notion of marriage which has already suffered much debasement in the world we live in.
Rowena,
“I do not know of any civilization or culture which does not have some kind of wedding ceremony”
The Mosuo are said to not celebrate marriages, but to keep their sexual partnering secret.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo
Concubines also have historically rarely had wedding ceremonies.
Our Western church-based culture has a tendency to say that any group that doesn’t have our type of marriage, doesn’t have a “culture”, but is barbarism, matriarchal depravity, and is uncultured or lacking culture. So, when they come across “Primitives” who seemingly do as they please and don’t have Western style families, they just write those folks off as stone age heathens. And to be honest once you leave God’s holy patriarchal design, you’re ultimately headed towards barbarism and the stone age.
Part of what we as people must contemplate is where do right and wrong come from? Does righteousness only come from obeying the will of God or does it also come from customs and traditions or from cultural norms or unspoken civil contracts or laws created by tyrannical rulers?
Wedding customs are going to be different in every culture that has weddings. They can’t all be right, excepting unless a marriage shindig isn’t even really a moral requirement.
God had 66 books of the Bible in which to spell out what a wedding ceremony must entail, and God never bothers to prescribe any ceremony, or even that there needs to be a ceremony. Any demand that there must be a ceremony is extrabiblical and made according to human reasoning. The wedding at Cana was described as people getting drunk at a house to the point where they’d become unlikely to tell good wine from bad. (seemingly a Catholic wedding 😉 )
God doesn’t detail any other portion of the ceremony besides lots of drinking at somebody’s house. And it would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to explain how a “Christian” wedding ought to happen, if that was something God wanted to define for us. Instead, Jesus corrects His mother for telling Him what to do.
So, what, in fact, does God strictly explain for us all over the Bible? God gives rules for whom a man can rightly have sexual relations with, and the death penalty is prescribed for all men and women directly breaking God’s sex rules for men bearing God’s own image.
Now there are also rules about usurping a father’s patriarchal headship over his virgin daughter, but that is a lesser crime not punishable by death. If a man has sex with another man they are guilty of committing an abomination and to be put to death. If two women stimulate each other sexually, although it is described as “unnatural” no punishment is ever directly listed for Lesbian relations in the Law, unless you believe it is lumped in as part of “sexual immorality” without any clear declaration. Neither is masturbation ever clearly forbidden in the Bible, and it is certainly natural. Masturbation exists widely in every culture, even without any training, it comes natural to people, they just figure it out, even when they’re taught to not do it, upon threats of blindness and damnation.
“For advocates of Sex=Marriage – in the case of multiple sexual relationships…”
As Derek already explained elsewhere, once you leave God’s sexual laws behind, and you are deserving of death according to God’s Noahic Law. God does not publish a plan for how you are to go on sinning against His law. Gods law says for such people to be put to death, so you shall put away the evil from among you. If after adultery, you’re still alive, by the grace of God and the moral weakness of your society, then you’re winging it and just trying to make the best of your unholy mess. I’d advise perhaps thinking of what might be in the best interest of the innocent parties, such as your children. But you’ve basically chosen to leave God’s pathway and even His roadmap, and He does not owe you an alternate routing.
God cares for all His creatures. He does not condone unnecessary cruelty to animals, nor to women, and especially not to men who are made to be His likeness.
Matthew 25:40 And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.’
Fittingly when Balaam’s donkey was allowed to speak, she addressed animal cruelty:
Numbers 22:28 Then the Lord opened the mouth of the donkey, and she said to Balaam, “What have I done to you, that you have struck me these three times?”
“The biggest challenge with Sex=Marriage is rape. And bottom-line, it comes down to this – advocates of Sex=Marriage believe that a woman’s consent to sex is irrelevant.”
LOL You imply I don’t care about a woman’s consent, all the while arguing like I do care about your opinion. It doesn’t logically follow that just because a woman’s consent is not always necessary for her to be taken and married while her father still owns her, that I don’t care about the opinions of women. I just care far more about what God thinks and speaks.
I guess I’ll ask you, Rowena, do you think Jesus was “born as a result of immorality” as the Pharisees said of Him? Or do you believe that his descent and lineage is not through immorality but is in accordance with the will of God? Because if Jesus is the “Lion of the tribe of Judah”, but you believe that Judah wasn’t actually married to Tamar by their just having sex, then that makes her sons bastards and her line of progeny illegitimate and “born as a result of immorality”.
FWIW Tamar, who was no longer a virgin, consented to the union, and Judah consented to cast his seed into her, not even knowing who she was. So, I say a marriage happened. And I think God would agree. Now it’s up to y’all to either decide whether Jesus Christ is the descendent product of harlotry, or to let God’s truth set you free from church dogmas on marriage, or cultural traditions, or wherever you get all the extra requirements beyond what Tamar needed to get married. Just one sploosh inside of her, and they became one flesh, according to God’s published law. How many flesh are there in a marriage? Is a marriage one flesh also? Math is hard! But it looks like it equals a marriage to me.
Sharkly sir – My questions were not addressed to you at all but to clarify the position of Sex=Marriage and implications of it. But since you have called me by name – I will address this:
Your assumption is that Jesus’ genealogy should have ONLY valid marriages. Else – he is “born out of immorality”. Hence, you attribute “marriage” to Judah and Tamar’s relationship.
Firstly – I do not recollect any Biblical prophecy saying that Jesus’ genealogy should include ONLY valid marriages.
‘Second – the assumption that he was “born out of immorality” is moot. The reason being – the virgin birth. Jesus is holy – because he did not inherit original sin by virtue of virgin birth and he was sinless (never committed any sin)
Third – why go back to Tamar? Mary was NOT married to Joseph at the time of conception of Christ. And she had not had sex with Joseph. If sex= marriage, her marriage became valid only AFTER Jesus’ birth (assuming you are not Catholic who believe she was a perpetual virgin). And yet – it says Joseph took Mary to be his wife; if she was not his WIFE her lineage as recorded in Luke would not have been recorded in Joseph’s name.
Because it is the public recognition which granted that marriage validity – not the sexual consummation of it.
If sex=marriage – Mary and Joseph did NOT have a valid marriage at the time of Jesus’ birth (Matthew 1:25)
Last – Jesus’ lineage shows that every single one of them sinned starting from Adam. Not just in sexual immorality but pretty much ALL sin. Jesus’ genealogy included sinners. Are we to assume none in his genealogy committed sexual immorality? Or do you claim people in his lineage could sin – just not sexual sin?
Interesting tidbit here – Bathsheba is recorded as wife of Uriah the Hittite who was dead when she married David.
God included a prostitute (even if we assume all her former lovers were dead when she married a Jew); a Moabite woman; an adulterous woman whose husband killed her former husband and a woman who we can infer at best sexually consummated her marriage after the birth of a child.
Bottomline – Jesus was not born out of immorality. This was NOT because his genealogy had perfectly valid marriages. He was not born out of immorality because of the virgin birth.
There are many questions that arise with the premise Sex=Marriage
Question 1 – If sex=marriage – what is your definition of a legitimate child?
Across civilizations / cultures there is always a type of ceremony that grants LEGITIMACY to sexual unions. In absence of this – there is ONLY sexual immorality and the culture FALLS. Any culture / civilization that has lasted several centuries – ALWAYS has some kind of FORMAL PUBLIC RECOGNITION to the marriage – usually a wedding ceremony
My point is not what the type of wedding is or what the wedding encompasses. Or even if there is a wedding ceremony. My point is that weddings / ceremonies denote societal sanction or public recognition of the marriage. The form could be a state licence or a church wedding or the father informing the tribe – each culture – it will vary – the point is when this recognition is given, the sexual union gains legitimacy and children born from this relationship gain a legitimate status.
The reason the Mosuo practice secret sexual union is because it is IRRELEVANT to them who is the father of the child. This is NOT true ACROSS civilizations and cultures. The paternity of the child is a very valid question
The example of the Mosuo is an example of the practice of a small tribe of 40000 people. Their model is similar to the kibbutz model followed in Israel. This tribe will follow the way of the kibbutz society. In a matriarchal society, boys are lost as masculinity is taught by men raised by men. In the 60’s – a new way of ‘free love’ was adopted. There are colonies in Amsterdam that follow this principle. A communal free love space. Where nobody knows who the father is. And everybody raises the children. It is the theme behind – It takes a village to raise a child. Never lasts! Just because they exist for a while does not mean they are a template to follow
Bottomline – If sex=marriage – what is the definition of an illegitimate child?
Question 2 – If sex= marriage, then rape establishes a marriage
However Shechem asked for Dinah’s hand in marriage AFTER he raped her and death penalty was given to man NOT woman if he raped her (Deuteronomy 22)
Why were these rapes NOT recognised as marriages?
Question 3 – If sex=marriage, what is the definition for sexual immorality, fornication and adultery?
If sex-marriage. then the inference is there is no difference between a live-in relationship and a marriage.
So – by extension – is it the claim that God views a live-in relationship the SAME as a marriage.
In the practical – If you are a Christian parent / teacher – do you tell / teach your children – have sex with a person. Stay sexually monogamous to that person lifelong. It is irrelevant what society thinks. In the eyes of God – you are married and that is all that counts
Or
Do you teach them – Wait till marriage. Have sex after the wedding. Stay faithful to your husband/ wife. Lifelong. (One man / One wife. For life)
Question 4 – If sex=marriage then prostitution establishes multiple marriages
I Corinthians 6:15-19
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.
16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.
17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.
18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.
19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.
Why does Paul say that if one joins his body to a prostitute it is fornication – that one must flee from. Why does he not say marriage is established even though one is one flesh with her? Why does he refer this to INSTEAD as defiling the body which is the temple of the Holy Spirit?
Bottomline – if sex-marriage – then sex with a prostitute establishes a marriage. Which brings me back to – how do you define sexual immorality, fornication and adultery?
Question 5 – If sex=marriage – then I Corinthians 7 makes no sense
Let us examine verses 1-2
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
If sex=marriage – then Paul is saying. It is good for a man NOT to touch a woman but to avoid fornication – let a man have sex with a woman
(How does that make sense?)
Let us examine verses 8 and 9
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn
If sex=marriage – then Paul is saying – it is good for a man to be celibate but if he cannot – let him have sex!!! In other words – the way to avoid sexual immorality is to have sex!!!
Let us go further
28 But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned.
If sex-marriage, then as per verse 28 – if a man has sex he has NOT sinned. Which brings me back to question – Can men not commit fornication and adultery?
36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
If sex-marriage – then Paul’s advice to men is – if you have sexual desire for a woman, have sex with her. Not marry her – just have sex with her.
So if sex-marriage – the solution to sexual immorality is sex with the woman
Bottomline – If sex=marriage – how does one define fornication, sexual immorality and adultery
Rowena,
I was just checking back in to see if my comment had been approved and posted, and behold, it has, you have seen it and asked a lot of questions.
I’ll try to sort of answer them. I don’t believe that sex is the only factor in marriage. The Jewish system, set up by God, considers a betrothal to be a binding marriage agreement. Such that a man needed a divorce to get out of it. As in the case of Joseph who was betrothed to Marry and was wanting to divorce her quietly when she was found to be with child. The Jewish law is also set up to recognize the betrothal as a valid marriage.
Everywhere you see the English word “fornication” in your Bible, you should substitute the phrase “sexual immorality”. Some translations already do that. Also recognize that the ancient Hebrew and Greek didn’t use the words “husband” and “wife”, we infer those words during translation from a possessive form of man and woman which literally means “your man” or “your woman”, but doesn’t always mean husband or wife, or a betrothed.
As to one of your previous questions, “how is a man to know if a woman is married in the absence of a wedding?” the Jewish law speaks of tokens of a woman’s virginity, which were kept and could be used as evidence in the Jewish courts. Obviously, a married woman could go to a distant town and claim to be a widow, so there is always the possibility for people to sin, and to drag others into their unholy mess. I married a woman from far away, and I got lied to about quite a lot of things. But I’m only responsible for my own actions, based upon what I knew and believed at the time. Yeah, it was an unholy mess.
A Jewish man having sex with a virgin woman always created a marriage, even if it was rape. However, if she was betrothed, which confers “taken” status on her, then that marriage is considered adulterous. If she was raped out in the countryside, only the rapist gets put to death, she is presumed to innocent of the adultery via rape, and her “husband by rape” is killed for it, thereby making her free to remarry. Whereas if she was raped in the city, but she did not scream to alert anyone, she is judged to be complicit with the “rapist” and then they are both put to death for committing adultery.
If a Jewish virgin was not betrothed and either got raped or willingly had sex with a man. The rapist owes the father her full bride price, and the father can choose to forbid his daughter to leave his house and become the other man’s stolen property. But nowhere does the Bible state that she may marry some other man while he is still living. They are still married since God joined them into one flesh, but the father’s patriarchal authority allows him to deny his daughter to the man who did not seek and get his approval before taking his daughter to be his wife.
“What is your definition of a legitimate child?”
A child conceived by two parents who are/were rightly one-flesh (and thus married) to each other. Meaning: Not the product of adultery, such as Bathsheba and Solomon’s illegitimate firstborn son, conceived by adultery, whose life God took.
There really is no “fornication”. There is only marriage or adultery and various sorts of sexual immorality. If a virgin or widow chose to become a prostitute, she’d be “married” to the first man, and then immediately separated (divorced), and would then be committing adultery with every subsequent man. Thus, Judah was tricked into fulfilling the duty of “Levirate” marriage for his sons’ widow Tamar, and she was not guilty of adultery, because she did not continue having sex with any other men.
I think all of Jesus’ ancestors were sinners, including Mary, but I think all of their children were legitimate by the definition I gave above. Yet the Birth of Jesus is sort of a peculiar and a special case. Joseph is considered Mary’s husband, but God is Jesus’ Father, yet Marry remained a virgin until Jesus’ birth. Mary’s impregnation by the Holy Spirit was apparently not via a physical sex act, so, it wasn’t adulterous cuckoldry, there were not two flesh joining into one.
If a man has sex with a woman who is not married to anybody else, then they are one-flesh and are effectively married. So, if a man and woman live together and have sex together, if she is not committing adultery, then they are effectively married.
1 Corinthians 7:1-5 makes sense if you translate πορνείας (porneias) as “Sexual immoralities”. The church’s invention of “premarital sex” (fornication) which didn’t exist in the Jewish law, was only to buttress their usurping takeover of God’s uniting of marriages. And they’d have been willing to sell you an indulgence to commit sexual immoralities, back while they were formulating these new doctrines. And now you understand why they didn’t want the people to have the Bible in their own language. They didn’t want folks to be able to see how the church was not following God’s word but had turned aside to making their own new religious way.
If you think about it, the system I’m describing is simple and it works. There is nothing about my beliefs that would prevent you from also getting “married ” in a church, or at a courthouse, if you wanted to get their sanction.
People can and will always come up with weird scenarios. What about the man who was presumed to be dead, who finally returns to find his wife is now married to some other guy and has a kid with him too. LOL IDK Try to avoid that.
If sex= marriage – a man should only have sex with a virgin
A MAN who marries a woman KNOWING she has previous sexual history (assuming that even 1 former lover / husband is still alive) is committing ADULTERY.
BOTH the man and the woman deserve the death penalty according to Jewish law for committing adultery. The woman for betraying her husband / husbands. And the man for sleeping with a married woman. BOTH should be stoned to death. Am I correct in assuming that?
Please note your statement:
The Jewish system, set up by God, considers a betrothal to be a BINDING marriage agreement. Such that a man needed a divorce to get out of it. The Jewish law is also set up to recognize the betrothal as a valid marriage.
Another statement
However, if she was betrothed, which confers “taken” status on her, (HOW??? If sex=marriage, she is only ‘taken’ if she has had sex)
Which brings me to – it is not sex that LEADS to a BINDING marriage agreement. It FOLLOWS it. It was the BETROTHAL ceremony that granted validity to the marriage – not the sex
Sex is not equal to marriage – but it IS the RATIFICATION of the marriage covenant. In its absence, the marriage becomes NULL and VOID. Which is why the tokens of virginity – the blood stained garment – was taken AFTER the wedding NOT PRIOR to it
Jewish fathers did NOT send their daughters to have sex with their “husbands” till the wedding ceremony was OVER even if she was betrothed to the man. But he was expected to record that the RATIFICATION was done AFTER.
Mary may have been betrothed to Joseph but she was not allowed to have sex with him till the wedding was done. If she had sex with him – she would have been considered an immoral woman (even though she was betrothed to him)
If sex precedes the wedding ceremony (as per Jewish law) – it is considered fornication / sexual immorality
That is the meaning of I Corinthians 7:1-2 –
Do not touch her. To avoid fornication / sexual immorality take her as WIFE. Then come continuing verses – There can be no sexual denial AFTER you are husband / wife.
Else it translates – Do not touch her TILL you have sex with her? How does that make sense?
Sex is the RATIFICATION of the marriage covenant. Which is why as per Jewish law – it is to be CONFINED to the marital bed. Out of it – it is DEFILEMENT / SIN / SEXUAL IMMORALITY / FORNICATION / ADULTERY. Every form of sex OUTSIDE the marital bed is NOT a marriage but deserves the death penalty – as per Jewish law
Sharkly sir – We BOTH are in agreement with the HOLINESS of God and HIS standards for sex. Where we are in disagreement is how we perceive violations to the marital bed, You call them “marriages” but unholy ones. I understand it as sin.
Marriage is ALWAYS holy and the marital bed undefiled. It is people who fail marriage – by defiling the marital bed and having ‘unholy’ relationships – premarital sex; adultery; homosexuality; sexual denial IN marriage; rape – taking what is the marital right of the husband etc. Anything which defiled the marital bed (in SINGULAR – it is BED not BEDS!) is UNHOLY / SIN which deserves the death penalty as per the Bible
And that is where the Gospel comes in!!!
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.
As you can see by that instance from the Mosaic law, sex/rape makes a marriage. Although it is an offense against the virgin’s father’s patriarchal headship, and it forcibly takes the daughters virginity. It isn’t claimed to be “premarital sex” or “fornication” but is said to be a marriage according to God the Lawgiver. The man’s penalty is to pay full price (not being allowed to barter the price down) and he cannot ever put away she whom he stole.
Either a marriage can be arranged and agreed to (via betrothal), or it can be transacted (via sex) and then the laws of proper payment apply. This probably isn’t a great analogy, but here goes:
Imagine I have a burrito to sell, and I tell you that it costs five dollars. There are two ways you can own that burrito. One way is to bargain me down to four dollars and we both agree to that price and then you give me the four dollars, in which case the burrito is yours, even though you haven’t taken it yet. The other way is to grab the burrito and take a bite from it. In which case it is now your burrito, nobody else will want it, and you owe me the full five dollars I asked for it. You have forfeited your opportunity to bargain, or to claim you’re not satisfied with the burrito that has now become irreversibly yours.
That is analogous to what is true with a virgin according to God’s Old Testament Jewish law.
Yes, knowingly “marrying” or having sex with a woman who is one-flesh with another living man is adultery. We live in what can only be described as “an adulterous generation.” Many of us were encouraged to enter such relations by the church and did so in a church. We were told that we were “unforgiving” if we wouldn’t marry a “recycled virgin”. That somehow it was more “Christlike” to forgive a whore than to require virginity. The church led us into adultery.
And FWIW men are allowed to have sex with their betrothed. As they are already considered to be his.
1 Corinthians 7:36(ESV) If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.
The church translators always make sure to slip in the English word “marry” as if “do as he wishes” means the man wants to have a fancy church wedding, which sort of ceremonies didn’t even exist back then. When the situation described is a man taking his betrothed wife in marriage by having sex with her. the literal meaning of the Greek word is, “take to wife”. It could easily be translated as, “let him do as he wishes, it is no sin to take her to wife.”
In 1 Corinthians 7:1-2 that you mentioned the word “touch” ἅπτεσθαι (haptesthai) means: fasten to; lay hold of, touch, know carnally; touching someone (something) in a way that alters (changes, modifies) them.
The apostle Paul was saying that it is most noble to stay celibate, but in order to prevent sexual immorality it is good for each man to have a woman/wife, and for each woman to have a man/husband. The concept isn’t as complicated as English translations make it, by always bowdlerizing the sex out of the Bible text, except for when it is unavoidable. Biblehub’s interlinear function makes it pretty easy to study and dissect the text in its original language and to see all the possible range of meaning for each individual word. The church has always had a strong incentive to translate the English Bible in ways that validate their current practices and beliefs.
The fact that God’s Word seems vague and confusing in regard to marriage and that the Mosaic law seems to be at odds with our “New Testament” understanding of marriage, should be a sign to you that the (c. 1600AD) English translation of the original text has been twisted a bit to fit the ever-straying church’s doctrines. Just like how Feminism started popping up “in the Bible” just as Feminism was greatly increasing in our society. The inspired Word of God is the original text, which is not necessarily the same as what gets preached in churches. Many passages get neutered that are sex-specific. Don’t believe everything you hear. When something seems off, I now investigate it.
“There are two ways you can own that burrito.”
I do not think STEALING the burrito makes it yours at all. According to the 10 commandments – by choosing the second way you are a THIEF – NOT the OWNER of the burrito. The burrito STILL belongs to the burrito seller and you would have to pay 4 times the cost of it – for the damage you caused the burrito – which the burrito seller could still decline. (The girl still belongs to the father TILL the father gives consent – even if you have raped her – that is why Shechem still asked Jacob to MARRY Dinah even AFTER he had raped her. If sex=marriage – he was her husband now. Why was he asking Jacob to marry her? Why did men of Benjamin ask fathers of girls they kidnapped for consent?)
Again – it depends on how you view it
If the Bible says – Do not steal. If you do – you will have to pay 4 times the cost to the owner.
1 view – I should NOT steal the burrito (This is my understanding of the heart and purpose of God which is HOLINESS which leads to obedience)
2nd view – I CAN Steal – I just have to pay 4 times the cost should I get caught
At the heart of it – the second view assumes REPENTANCE is better than OBEDIENCE.
While repentance is AVAILABLE – it should not be PRESUMED. This insults the holiness and grace of God
Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and has sexual relations with her, and they are discovered, 29 then the man who had sexual relations with her shall give the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall BECOME his wife, because he has violated her; he is not allowed to divorce her all his days.
The rape did not make her his WIFE. She BECAME his wife only AFTER the father allowed for a legal wedding.
“Many of us were encouraged to enter such relations by the church and did so in a church. The church led us into adultery.”
Eve did not set out to be a wicked woman. She was DECEIVED. But God still held her accountable and punished her.
Ignorance of God’s Word / failure to read it / being deceived is an excuse. God still holds us accountable.
Which is where the Gospel comes in!
“Men are allowed to have sex with their betrothed. As they are already considered to be his.”
(Why did Joseph NOT sleep with Mary then?)
1 Corinthians 7:36(ESV) If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.
If sex-marriage – above passage translates – do not fight your passion, just have sex with your betrothed. It is no sin
Firstly this was NOT Jewish custom at all…..There was a time gap between betrothal and marriage – where they are NOT allowed to have sex (Joseph and Mary)
Secondly – Why is the man fighting his passion at all if it is okay to have sex with her? What does it mean he is not behaving properly?
I understand it – if your passion is strong – move from betrothal to marriage – Let them Marry – it is no sin to have sex AFTER you are married. Just not BEFORE. If you have sex BEFORE – it is sexual immorality – which Paul warns us against. Hence the admonishment to control bodily passion. Why the admonishment at all – if it is ok to have sex with her?
Rowena,
Shechem (whom you keep bringing up) was an uncircumcised Hivite, He wasn’t supposed to be intermarrying with the children of Israel. What he did and how he chose to act are not examples for us. Nor was the genocidal response of Israel’s sons supposed to be our example either. I wouldn’t try to derive my beliefs from following the example of what one Canaanite rapist did to try to make peace with the children of Israel. After he mingled his own seed with the Israelites via rape. In fact, the Israelites were specifically told not to follow after the ways of the inhabitants of the land of Canaan. Nor should we use the methods of a rash lovestruck Canaanite prince as our guide to how things work according to God’s law. Canaanite beliefs and customs are not what God asks us to follow.
Although, you might notice that Israel and his sons had agreed to let Dinah stay at Shechem’s house, as his wife, until later when Simeon and Levi killed him and took her back. Israel and his sons seemed to consider the marriage a done deal, even though Simeon and Levi ultimately weren’t going to let it endure, since they took her being raped as a disgrace to their family. But, since Shechem had already taken Dinah, in the follow-up peace negotiations, Dinah’s family got to name their bride price and Shechem was obligated to meet their terms, which were: having all the men of his father’s city circumcised.
You seem to be objecting to Deuteronomy 22:28-29. While continuing to argue based upon the variances in English translations. In verse 29 you highlighted the word “Become”:
she shall BECOME his wife, because he has violated her
However, the Hebrew word used there is not future-tense, like that English word. Sometimes it also gets translated as present-tense or past-tense. And some other translations reflect “wife” as her state of being, concurrently joined by God.
KJV – she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her
YLT – to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her
“Firstly this was NOT Jewish custom at all…..There was a time gap between betrothal and marriage”
Jewish custom was often to betroth virgins prior to puberty, to assure transferring a virgin, families sometimes even agreed to betroth infants. In the verse I previously mentioned, some English translations will reflect the Greek idiom about the virgin reaching puberty, while some omit it. For example:
1 Corinthians 7:36(WEB) But if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of her age, and if need so requires, let him do what he desires. He doesn’t sin. Let them marry.
For you who want to debate based upon English translations, did you just see that: if any man thinks that he is behaving inappropriately toward his virgin … He doesn’t sin
What the church’s translators seem to try to avoid, at all costs, is just stating clearly what the apostle Paul was teaching in that verse. That: if a man is worried that he might be getting too physically intimate with his fiancée, who is now past puberty, if his passion impels him, he should do what he desires to do and fully take her sexually, making her his wife, because that isn’t wrong.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_corinthians/7-36.htm
The power-hungry church has butted into that process, to rule over families. (society’s fundamental units) If families arranged marriages, and couples consummated them shortly after the woman’s puberty arrived, families would be formed and would function without ever empowering the church leadership’s desire to rule over an earthly kingdom. The church would be stuck nurturing a kingdom that is not yet of this world. But, she’s a greatly impatient whore who doesn’t keep her rightful place. She’s not waiting for her heavenly groom. She’s committing whoredom with the rulers of this world to grasp for earthly power, not waiting until: The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
Whores lie! I found that out. Discover God’s word the way it was originally written, not how our God-usurping churches have all been twisting it. God’s truth will set you free from the church’s inappropriate idolatries and bondages and concocted sins.
Exodus 22:16-17
I had posted this comment earlier in a previous post. But will repost it:
Rape in the Bible carries death penalty. But the death penalty also required 2 witnesses.
Therefore, (and this is just my opinion) – if a man was caught with a virgin – the PRESUMPTION was that it was a case of premarital sex rather than rape. (if she was in the city – her screams would have been heard which suggests she did not scream) In this case, it was best that the man paid the bride price and married the girl.
This does not mean the Bible endorses premarital sex. If there is a no parking sign with a penalty for parking in a zone – it does not mean I can park there so long as I am willing to pay the fine. It means – DO NOT Park there. It was a condemnation of the practice of premarital sex by giving an incentive NOT to do it
This was a deterrent to the Alphas of that time. If you bed the girl, you must be willing to marry her. And this would be a humiliation to you as you married a girl with low character. Plus you would pay a BRIDE price – which was always a very SUBSTANTIAL amount – for a woman who was not worth it
But – what if it was a genuine case of rape – just with no witnesses. In this case, Bible leaves it to the FATHER of the girl to judge based on his knowledge of his daughter. If it was a case of premarital sex, it was unlikely the girl would refuse to get married. Also in the culture of the time his daughter and the father would be disgraced. Best to get her married to the guy concerned as it was unlikely anyone else would marry a woman of low character. There was only one possible reason (in my opinion) for the father to refuse to give the girl in marriage. It was a case of genuine rape – the girl was traumatised by the rape and refused to marry the guy. BUT in absence of 2 witnesses the rape could not be proven.
So the man escaped the death penalty but paid the bride price- which was set by the father of the girl. But, father refuses consent for marriage, knowing he is now responsible to take care of his daughter for the rest of her life
Let us look at rape of Tamar (not Judah’s DIL but Absalom’s sister)
When Amnon tries to rape her – what does she say?
II Samuel 13
12 And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
13 And I, whither shall I cause my shame to go? and as for thee, thou shalt be as one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.
If sex=marriage – why did she not just sleep with him. Why did she call it ‘shame’? By asking him to ask the king who was also her father – she was effectively agreeing to the marriage. She did not object to having sex with him – just not without marrying him first. Because having sex with him outside of marriage would have been a ‘shame’ and disgrace to her
She could have slept with him and asked him to pay the bride price later. But she wanted the VALIDITY of a marriage before she had sex with him. The fact that she wore her virginity garment proudly and rent it afterward shows her morality. She was so unwilling to have sex with him outside of marriage – she went through the trauma of rape.
Amnon made sure there were no witnesses – v9
So when David heard about it – why did he not send her to Amnon’s house – if she was now “married” to him? Because David – her father – understood a genuine rape had occured. So he did not force her to go to Amnon. Amnon hated her anyway. And David could not invoke death penalty on Amnon because there were no witnesses and it happened in the city. Since Amnon was also his son – David did nothing.
It was Absalom her brother who took revenge and killed Amnon. If sex-marriage – there was no reason for either Dinah’s or Tamar’s brother(s) to kill their sister’s “husband”. They did it because both their sisters were genuinely raped, there were no witnesses so the guys concerned escaped the death penalty and fathers (Jacob and David) did nothing.
II Samuel 13:12 And she answered him, Nay, my brother, do not force me; for no such thing ought to be done in Israel: do not thou this folly.
If sex=marriage – why did she not just sleep with him. Why did she call it ‘shame’?
Because when you both have the same father, having sex is not just uniting you into one flesh, but it also is incest, which by that time had been outlawed.
But Tamar recognized that after they had become one flesh, it was wrong for him to “put her away” divorcing himself from her.
2 Samuel 13:16 But she said to him, “No, my brother, for this wrong in sending me away is greater than the other that you did to me.” But he would not listen to her.
If the rape didn’t bond them together into a couple, then you’d think that she would have been right and glad to separate from him. But no, she recognized and said that for him to now put her away (after becoming one flesh with her) would be an even greater injustice.
So, if you encounter an incestuous marriage, don’t try splitting them apart. The foolish evil deed has already been done. Don’t compound the evil by forcing a separation of their shameful incestuous marriage.
FWIW incest laws vary from state to state. And incestuous marriages were mentioned in the Bible. Moses was the child of such a marriage, where his father had married his own aunt.
Exodus 6:20 And Amram took him Jochebed his father’s sister to wife; and she bare him Aaron and Moses: and the years of the life of Amram were an hundred and thirty and seven years.
Obviously, Moses’ parents’ marriage predates the “law of Moses”.
My question is, if Jesus is right about God joining the two into one flesh, then what exactly does your church add to the supposedly incomplete working of God? Is it anything more than just a social sanctioning of what will be done by God through nature and common-law coupling?
In truth “The Church” can’t actually “do” anything, because “The Church” is only a metaphorical woman, who believes herself to be the bride of Christ, while doing things like committing sexual immorality with the rulers of this world in a metaphorical sense. So, in reality, if your “church” only acts metaphorically, she can’t do anything in specific, such action is either done by a pastor or priest or accomplished by some collection of the active membership of the group.
So what actually happens the instant the conjurer casts his spell claiming, “Through the power vested in me by God and the state of Tennessee, I hereby pronounce you man and wife”? Or did it happen as the ring was slipped on? Or is it not until the cake is cut, or perhaps the moment the first bite is eaten? Or does marriage happen as a time-release all throughout the ceremony, or is the reception included as well? What if you pastor gets excommunicated or has his ordination rescinded? And what if it turns out that your pastor wasn’t registered with the State of Tennessee and was never vested with such power, or your pastor commits adultery proving that he has no inheritance in the kingdom of God, and clearly wasn’t vested with God either? Can a judge or public notary marry couples without claiming to be empowered by God?
And what if you get ordained instantly for free at https://www.ulc.org/ can you then officiate weddings? Their website says you can. And Wikipedia says that only four U.S. states expressly prohibit ULC ordained ministers from being authorized to solemnize marriages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Life_Church
I personally think God’s uniting the two into one flesh is sufficient to create a marriage, otherwise He would have told us what more was required, so we could do it. Don’t cha think? He made it very clear that sex turns the two into one flesh.
Do you really need a church to solemnize your rape into a marriage, when God’s law has already specified the terms of such a marriage? And could you even find a modern church that solemnizes rape? They may be subject to mandatory reporting laws, and get you arrested and detained apart, as opposed to adding their magic touch that can turn non-consensual sexual acts into marriages as described in God’s law. I doubt they’d touch that kind of marriage with a ten-foot pole.
Churches don’t even agree on what they add to marriages. Why? Because whatever it is, it varies by brand of church, civil jurisdiction, and by the opinion of the particular minister, as to what he thinks he might be adding to the work of God. But I think it varies because ultimately, they’re all just making it up. The Bible never says for churches to perform weddings, nor how to. And so, the Bible certainly never says what a wedding in a church would add to your marriage. Was that an omission in the Great Commission, that God didn’t command them to perform weddings?
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:
Should churches really be spending their time teaching people the mandatory observance of cultural traditions which were never commanded, when people have enough trouble knowing and keeping the legitimate ordinances which God did command?
While I am not altogether sure that adultery / incest / rape / prostitution establish “marriages” – (I see them as violations to marriage), I do see your point on marrying someone with sexual history.
Becoming “one flesh” with someone – whether one regards this as “marriage” or not – creates a very unholy bond and when this is repeatedly done one ends up with the same wreckage as someone who has had multiple ‘divorces’. So marrying someone like this – means dealing with all that wreckage.
For the men in my family – (grandfather, father, husband) virginity was not a PREFERENCE but a REQUIREMENT. And those have ALL led to lasting marriages. There were other factors too obviously – but I think I now understand why.
For me – as a young girl waiting till marriage was simple obedience to God’s Word but I always had the sense for the MEN – it was MORE than that.
From what you say, they probably had the sense that the woman was already “married” or had been multiple times and that just made them not consider such women especially since these men had waited till marriage.
I definitely think it is something to keep in mind going forward – with my sons and SS children
“While I am not altogether sure that adultery / incest / rape / prostitution establish “marriages” – (I see them as violations to marriage) …”
Well let’s try to figure this part out, then. Were Moses and Aaron bastards, or were their parents married. The Bible indicates that the Lawgiver was lawfully conceived, that His father really was able to marry his aunt, incestuously.
Exodus 6:20a Amram married Jochebed his aunt, and she bore him Aaron and Moses,
It looks to me like that even though incest is a violation of marriage “best practices”, it is also a kind of marriage.
Deuteronomy 22:28(CEB) If a man meets up with a young woman who is a virgin and not engaged, grabs her and has sex with her, and they are caught in the act, 29 the man who had sex with her must give fifty silver shekels to the young woman’s father. She will also become his wife because he has humiliated her. He is never allowed to divorce her.
According to Mosaic law the rape of an unengaged virgin becomes a “shotgun marriage”. So, rape also is a violation of marriage “best practices”, but it too is a method of becoming man and wife.
1 Corinthians 6:16 Do you not know that he who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two shall become one flesh.”
Again, prostitution is a mortal sin against both God and against the intended “temple” of His Spirit, but it is clearly stated as creating that same “one flesh” union, even citing a quote from Genesis 2:24 where God first described what we call “marriage”. Was the apostle Paul wrong to describe what happens with a prostitute by quoting God telling us what happens in marriage? Because otherwise the Bible is teaching us that the same decision to commit to physically joining yourself together with another person, of the opposite sex, is the common “taking” transaction shared between prostitution and marriage and betrothal. In the case of betrothal, the commitment to having sex has happened, but the physical uniting has not yet. Because when the physical union does occur then the two are no longer twain but become one.
Adultery is by definition performed with a woman who is already another man’s flesh and his most personal property. Although it forms an illicit bond in the flesh, that illicit bond is to be severed by the death penalty.
Conclusion: Sex joins men and women into one flesh. And sex is also what makes married couples join into one flesh. There is no other command of God specifying what must happen for two to become one, except them getting naked and fulfilling their natural cravings.
The more I study this topic in the original Bible languages, the more I see the Bible has been Bowdlerized by the church, making subjects like sex/marriage misunderstood, and taken over with distorted doctrines and practices.
Please check out the last two verses of Genesis chapter 2 at the following link:
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/2.htm
Notice that the phrase “one flesh” appears at the absolute end of the chapter, not relocated into the next to the last verse as done in most English translations. Then hover your cursor over the Strong’s number (1320) and see that definition 1c for the word translated and Bowdlerized as “flesh” is: male organ of generation (euphemism).
Now when you see that same exact word get used in phrases like, “You shall be circumcised by cutting the foreskin off your flesh.” the Bible text becomes far less ambiguous, realizing that it really says, “the foreskin of your penis”, but nobody wanted to print the word “penis” in the Bible, where kids might see it. So, translators knowingly and intentionally mistranslate such text to censor our God’s vulgar words.
If I had to quickly make a readable but grammatically quite literal translation of the last two verses of Genesis 2, it might read like this:
The other one was extracted out of the male, intended to become refastened together as a wife to a male who shall be (set free) disjoined from his mother and father, and then, on account of the woman and man (those two) abiding bare naked and (uninhibited) undisappointed, there comes to exist only one again, united by the male’s sex organ.
I believe the false beliefs about marriage generally grew from the church’s Gnostic-inspired gross devaluing of natural sexual relations and their general avoidance of discussing sex.
Bonus point: Men aren’t the only ones who can rape their way into a marriage. Lot was raped by his own two daughters after they drugged him with wine until he passed out. They acted in accordance with the general spirit of levirate marriage, but in that case to preserve the seed of their father, whose wife had died. And also partly because they reasoned that no man might ever come venture up their mountain and have sex with two cavewomen, after their betrothed husbands and all their intended in-laws had died in the divine vengeance against Sodom and the other cities of the plain. So, with all their neighbors incinerated by flaming brimstone falling from the sky, they had become reduced to hiding out living in a mountain cave with only their father around. It apparently seemed to them like a “last man on earth scenario”.
Pingback: Sex is not Marriage Final Thoughts | Christianity and masculinity