Solutions and Silver Linings to Dark Clouds

This is a follow-up to the last post, in which I outlined what I think is the biggest problem the church faces today.  The first aspect of the problem that needs to be recognized is it happened because God did it and it’s a punishment.

Before anybody thinks Toad has gone off his rocker, Romans 1:18-32 describes the wrath of God being poured out on a world in which people do not acknowledge, honor or worship Him.  That wrath is poured out in three distinct phases.  First, God gave them over to impurity that they might be dishonored in their bodies.  The second time God gave them over to depraved passions.  The third time God gave them over to a depraved mind.

Given the specific issues involved (especially Romans 1:26, the women giving up the “natural function”) it is apparent to me that passage is a prophesy which has already come to pass for Western Civilization.  It started in the period of the 1960’s with the replacement of absolute (Biblical) morality with moral relativism.   There was an explosion of infidelity, promiscuity, divorce and adultery as people rejected God’s standards and replaced them with their own.  A generation later in the 1980’s we saw the depraved passion of feminism explode into the public consciousness as women gave up the natural function of women and began to truly hate men.  Likewise, the men gave up the natural function and homosexuality experienced explosive growth.  They received the due penalty in their own bodies with the devastation of AIDS.  A generation later with the 2000’s we see the cycle complete with evidence of depraved minds surrounding us.

I have spent the past few years studying Biblical family, marriage and sex; and the results of that study have been surprising.  Or, perhaps they should not have been surprising… because it’s obvious the average church-goer cares far more about what others think about them than what God thinks about them.  the more I dug into this, the worse it got.  Finally, it got to the point that I started all over from the beginning.  I had previously thought the major issue was divorce and remarriage in the church, but I was thinking of “official” marriage and divorce.

As discussed in the last post, when we start with the concept of marriage and take it from there, things get interesting.  There are multiple passages in Scripture that deal with marriage, but the critical passage is Exodus 22:16-17 because that passage clearly states when a man and a virgin have sex they are married unless the father refuses to allow it.   Since there isn’t any dowry or bride-price for virgins any longer, the fact is, sex with a virgin is the act of marrying her.

However, one thing we do not want to do is create a doctrine based on a shaky foundation, so we must rigorously test this.  The on-point passages are Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 28-29; Numbers 30:2-5 and Judges 21.   Comparing Exodus 22:16-17 with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and contrasting those passages with the punishment of the virgin in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, it becomes evident there is no other way to take Exodus 22:16-17 except as a definitive statement that “taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her.”

This creates a huge dilemma for a great many people.  I strongly suspect the reason we have such a strong tradition of marriage ceremonies is directly related to this.  We started off with people who understood clearly that the act of taking a woman’s virginity was to marry her and if her father refused he was annulling the marriage, not preventing it (yes, splitting semantic hairs, but necessary).  The act of annulling the marriage was to rescind the woman’s agreement and invalidate the marriage after the fact, not to prevent it, and the father had 24 hours (“on the day”) to annul her agreement.

However, we notice that in verse 16, this Law specifically applies to “between a man and his wife; and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father’s house.”  The father does not have the right to annul the marriage of a woman who gave her virginity to a man while no longer in her youth, living in her father’s house.

Again, this creates a huge dilemma for many people and there is tremendous pressure for people to dismiss this as simply too preposterous to consider.  However, we have two examples of people who were in this situation and a record of what happened.  The first is found in 2nd Kings 22-23.  Josiah was 26 years old, having ascended to the throne of Judah at the age of 8.  He was the son of Amon, an evil king, and the grandson of Manasseh, a truly evil king, but “he did right in the sight of the Lord and walked in all the way of his father David, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left.”

In the 18th year of his reign a copy of the book of the Law (which had been lost) was discovered during a renovation of the Temple.  The book was taken to the king and read in his presence.  When he heard the words of the book, Josiah tore his clothes and sent men to inquire of the prophets, saying “great is the wrath of the Lord that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”

They went to Huldah the prophetess, who said:

“Thus says the Lord, Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read.  Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place and it shall not be quenched.”

“But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord thus shall you say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel, regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you, declares the Lord.  Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil which i will bring on this place.”

Read the entire story, both chapter 22 and 23, but pay particular attention to that passage because it is critical.  First, God plainly tells the King that judgment is coming because His wrath has been kindled and it will not be quenched.  Second, because Josiah’s heart was in the right place, he will be spared (and his people with him) from seeing the day of the Lord’s vengeance on His own people.

How is this any different from out situation today?  The wrath of God is being poured out but salvation in Christ awaits all who call upon the Name of the Lord, confess their sin and repent of their wicked ways.  Churches talk a lot about calling upon the Name of the Lord and confessing sin, but there seems to be a strange silence when it comes to repentance.

Look at what Josiah did.  First, he gathered the people and they had the book of the Law read to them.  Then, the King stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord (a vow) to walk after the Lord and keep Hi commandments and His testimonie and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul and carry out the words of this covenant that were written in this book.  And all the people entered into the covenant.  After that, King Josiah spent the rest of his life striving with all his might to enforce the book of the Law in his kingdom.  He tore down the high places, he broke the altars of Baal, he forbid the rituals and re-instituted the passover and new moons feasts.  In the end he received the testimony of the Lord that he was the greatest king, for none before him had served the Lord with all their heart, all their soul and all their might and none like him came after.

Josiah did not just confess his sin, he repented.  He did all he could to ensure that God was honored and God’s Law was observed, that the people would keep the commandments of the Lord.

Now, we turn to the book of Ezra, and the story of the mixed marriages in chapters 9 and 10.  A group of Hebrews under the leadership of Ezra journeyed back to Jerusalem from Babylon with the blessing of King Artaxerxes, but after arriving Ezra was informed that some of the men had violated the commandment not to take foreign wives.  After calling all the people together (like Josiah) an agreement was made amongst the people to repent of their transgressions and they put away their foreign wives, some of whom had born them children.  In total, 113 men had their names listed forever in Scripture, by name, for the sin of marrying foreign wives and they fulfilled their oath and put them and they children they had by them away.

Sounds pretty rough, doesn’t it?  Let’s keep a few things in mind from what we’ve seen.  The attitude of the person who hears the command of the Lord, confesses their sin and repents is something God honors.

The idea that taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her is preposterous to many today because the tradition states “just because you have sex doesn’t mean you’re married.”   In a way, that’s true, because in the case of a non-virgin sex does not create marriage, it usually creates a case of adultery.  In the case of a virgin, her father (and only her father) has the right to say that and if he says it when he first hears of it then he is annulling the marriage.

Just as with the traditions of the people in the time of King Josiah, when the people bowed down and worshiped foreign gods, the traditions today concerning marriage and sex are very powerful and I am certainly no king Josiah.   So, it seems to me that with the Law clear and the examples we have of both Josiah and Ezra, if the person who has finally heard and understood the command of the Lord humbles themselves, confesses their sin and repents of their sin, God will judge righteously.

First, ascertain the situation and status.

Perhaps some have heard the old saying “mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.”  The fact is, only the woman truly knows who she gave her virginity to if she willingly did it, and I proceed from the standpoint of the woman.

marriage flow chart2

So, if you’re married, it gets a little complex, because that drags a bunch of other stuff into this, specifically Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-15, but I neglected to mention one thing on that chart.  The question of whether your father annulled the marriage really devolves to whether your father actually found out about the marriage.  Did he?  If you did it “in your youth living in your father’s house” and maybe he was one of those “don’t ask – don’t tell” guys, go to your father, confess what you did, explain why it’s important and ask him to pray and tell God that he is refusing your marriage to the guy you gave your virginity to.

Keep in mind, that you maybe ought to have him read all of Numbers 30, because there *is* that part in there that says the guilt will be on his head if he does it.  I just can’t see the guy you married getting upset about it when he doesn’t know he married you.

But, maybe that won’t work, so let’s graph this out:

marriage flow chart

If the guy you married isn’t a Christian, contact him, tell him you joined a cult that believes you’re married, and ask him for a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  All he has to do is write that he’s divorcing you for adultery and sign it.  You’re divorced and you don’t ever have to show it to anybody.   Just because he’s not a Christian doesn’t make him the non-believer who left you.  You may very well have dumped him.  Play it by the book and get a certificate of divorce.  If necessary, offer to end it with a bang: it’s not like it’s a sin because until he signs that paper he’s your husband.

If he won’t do that, ask him when you should move in with the kids.  When he says he isn’t interested, you’re free (1st Corinthians 7:15).  If he does want you back, you have to consider that you have a choice.  1st Corinthians 7:10-11 says that since you’ve already “left” him, you are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to him.  That’s the choice.

Now, here’s where a bit of investigation might help.  If he’s married, you don’t want to tell him that he’s got the right to have more than one wife.  That might interest him.  If he’s been divorce raped and hates his ex, find out how to act just like his ex.  That should fix the problem.   Being stupid got you into this mess but that doesn’t mean you have to continue with that plan…  and ultimately it’s his decision, so why not give him some incentive to decide the way you want him to?

If the guy claims to be a Christian, 1st John 2:2-6 applies.  If he won’t be reconciled to you, present your case to the elders of your church and ask for their judgment.  They won’t want to but since they won’t agree with any of this from a doctrinal standpoint and they don’t have to put anything in writing, they’ll probably go along.  Cry.  That always helps.  Since he isn’t being obedient to the Word (1st Peter 3:7- “husbands live with your wives”) ask for a judgment of excommunication.  They can excommunicate him, that makes him the unbeliever who will not consent to live with you and you’re free. (“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven”)

If the guy claims to be a Christian but is married to another woman, you’ll probably get the same answer, but this time when you present it to your elders point out that there is nothing to prevent a man from having more than one wife and he obviously has 2 wives as far as God is concerned but he isn’t treating you equally (see Exodus 21:10) by providing equal food, clothing, shelter and conjugal rights.   Again, ask for a judgment of excommunication.

Trust me on this, the Toad has enormous experience with the reactions of church-folk when they’re confronted with some of the stuff Scripture allows but happens to fall outside their comfort zone.  If the guy is a serious conservative Christian, find a friend to help you.  Your ideal friend will be dressed like a slut, tatted up with a skrillex haircut, piercings and have no hesitation about a bit of groping and swapping spit with you in front of the guy.  Tell him it’s OK, she’s your girlfriend and the two of you are *really* close but you’re the only one that likes guys.  She hates them.  If necessary, have said girlfriend snort a line in front of him and offer him some.

If you really want to wiggle out of this, all you have to do is put him in a state of mind in which he absolutely does not want to have anything to do with you.  In other words, get in touch with your inner slut, your inner bitch and maybe get in touch with your kinkiest girlfriend.  If you don’t have any of those, go find a dyke bar and tell a few of the the girls there your story about your need to make a seriously bad impression on a fundie Christian guy.  If they’re anything like the ones I know they’d get a kick out of helping out with something like that and probably wouldn’t even hit on you (much).

But, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if churches taught what the Bible actually says about marriage?  Saying giving your virginity to a guy doesn’t make you married is like saying you’re only married if it happens in a church, you’re wearing white, a preacher officiates, somebody sings a sappy romance song, at least one of the women cries and your mother acts like a pain in the ass.   I mean, really?  Is that in the Bible somewhere?  (no)

The point is, as a Christian, you either want to please God or you don’t, which means you either commit yourself to being obedient to the Word or you don’t.  Think about it.

This entry was posted in Marriage, Messages to a young man. Bookmark the permalink.

49 Responses to Solutions and Silver Linings to Dark Clouds

  1. “Being stupid got you into this mess but that doesn’t mean you have to continue with that plan… ” omg love it. Well this all certainly is food for thought…

  2. Ok so I have a special circumstance as well. Gonna throw this out for discussion sake. My father passed away when I was two, so there was not way to ask for his consent or for him to disapprove. Ton has said before my older brother would be the one in authority over me in this case (not sure if that’s so?) if so, my brother was highly pissed when he found out and did not approve. So would that mean we weren’t married as a result? You know, under this highly controversial assertation you put out there… Just curious, what say thee?

    Also, is it only sex w a virgin that triggers marriage or would then the next subsequent sex partner then be considered married? I am confused… 🙂

    • That’s the subject of the next post. What you call my “highly controversial assertion” has drawn some interesting responses, almost all by email. Interestingly, they raised a couple of good points.

      For good or bad, though, it all comes down to the wording of Exodus 22:16-17 and my interpretation is the only reasonable one given the related passages. Nothing else fits.

      Still, if you think this is bad as a woman, think about it from the guy’s POV. Think about it. Other than virgins, there are literally almost no women out there who are eligible to marry any more. Widows? Really? Were they virgins when they got married? No? Then they aren’t really widows. Divorced women, same deal, and that’s assuming they are *legitimately* divorced.

      Put on your thinking hat and let’s see if you can sus out the only way to legitimately “take” one of these married women as a wife or concubine.

      This is like the whole birther issue. One guy is eligible to be president because of who is parents were and where he was born. Another guy is not, for the same reason, and in both cases it’s a situation they had no control over.

      I caught major grief over the “stupid got you into this” comment until I pointed out that what is is taught is that premarital sex is a sin, so they *thought* they were sinning and did it anyway. Would have it made a difference if they’d been taught that it wasn’t a sin at all, but the act of getting married? Do teenagers every really think?

      • You mean others emailed you rather than bare all in the comments? Well now, don’t I feel silly?

        But actually I think it’s worth open discussion, as uncomfortable as that may make folks. Maybe teenage girls (or hopefully older but let’s be realistic based on current statistics) would be a lot choosier about who they choose as their first (and only till death do they part) partner? Would that be so bad? Currently pop culture (no pun intended) literally encourages teen girls to ditch their virginity as some casual coming of age ritual, rather than to grasp what that choice truly is in God’s eyes. I know I will be sharing Toad’s version w my own girls… And I hope they resist society’s pressures to devalue sexual intimacy as casually as a handshake just because “everyone else is doing it!”

        • They emailed me because that way they could call me the names they wanted without anyone else knowing they use that sort of language.

          It was difficult to come to the conclusions I did, because it put the final nail in a long marriage that I now have to accept was never a marriage. I used to ask God “why” and I guess I have my answer now.

          • Wait you mean I could email and call you names? I seem to have totally missed these memos somehow. Dang! (Kidding…whether I agree w someone or not, I’d just agree to disagree rather than sling insults via email.) I actually find it a very interesting idea to ponder…and if it is so, as you point out, there should be a lot of folks taking personal stock and asking, “now what?”

        • And… Bloom, if all I did was make a difference for a few girls like yours such that they don’t have to go through the pain of doing something really stupid out of ignorance and then later trying to solve an almost insolvable problem… then maybe I’ll have done some good after all.

          OTOH, my latest idea is setting up a charity to help alleviate the suffering of virgins stuck in Muslim paradise with no husband, just waiting to get their cherry popped. And who knows how long they’ve been waiting? They probably don’t have vibrators and stuff like that, either. It just makes me positively ill thinking about how bad they’re suffering, waiting to get their on jihadi who will be so excited to see them because it means he finally never has to fuck a goat again.

          • Well Toad I will be installing this seed of thought in them and sure hope it takes root.

            I am not sure I follow that second part though. Anyway… Cheers! 🙂

          • The only way to help those girls, 72 at a time, is to give jihadi’s a one-way non-stop ticket to where-ever those girls are hanging out.

            It’s a win-win situation. The girls get a husband, the goats get left alone. I get to say stuff about alleviating the suffering of women with a straight face and collect donations for a worthy cause. Even Ton could get behind an idea like this. Think of all the Swedish women who would donate to a cause like this!

      • Ah I see, it was a change of topic, switching books entirely in fact. How anyone could actually believe that virgins are the eternal reward for killing innocent people is beyond me.

        What a nutty time we live in… Truly.

        But back to the topic, I am sure in these times telling my girls their virginity means something is not PC. I suppose like Noah all one can do is do as commanded, build the Ark in the sun while all the naysayers make fun. In the end it’s between each one and God, at that point despite my many mistakes I’m hoping to hear “well done good and faithful servant” rather than “I know you not.”

        Whether or not you are 100% correct in your reading of these passages, I admire your struggle to understand them and the courage to call out the pink elephant in the middle of the room that others want to awkwardly pretend isn’t there. The sexual mores of today are clearly way off track from the Word, I don’t know how any could deny that.

        • The two examples I used were Josiah and Ezra. In both cases they recognized the problem and in both cases they did something about it. In both cases, however, the first thing they did was they called together the people and got an agreement that what was happening was wrong. It was only with the agreement of the people that the repentance of change took place. I hate to say it, but I don’t see that happening today.

          That people question my reading of the passages in question is not unusual and I’ve asked myself and others why I can see this so plainly when generation after generation of Christians apparently couldn’t.

          The two most interesting answers I’ve received are first, that it was only 4 generations or so ago that people did understand this, but that’s around the time that women got the vote and it stopped being preached. After that, tradition took over. Then feminism took over and it became hate-speech to point out what God said about women.

          The second is that seminaries teach doctrine supported by Scripture and things like Exodus 22:16-17 is something that’s never taught or studied. After all, “everybody knows” we aren’t under the Law anymore and everybody knows that having sex doesn’t make you married so why study something like that?

          Like I was telling one of my friends, the penny finally dropped for me on Matthew 19 and Genesis 2:24, and the insight it gave me on the Exodus 22:16-17 passage was decisive in helping me to understand it. Genesis 2:24 is the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage. I noticed years ago that it didn’t limit a man to one wife, but there was something else I never noticed.

          In Matthew 19 when Jesus was asked about the grounds for divorce, He quoted Gen. 2:24 and said “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” The Pharisees asked about Deut. 24:1-4 and Jesus responded “Moses permitted you… but from the beginning it was not this way.” I missed what He was saying with *that* answer for a long time.

          Genesis 2:24 gives the man the authority to initiate marriage and it not only doesn’t limit a man to a single wife, it likewise does not give the man the authority to terminate a marriage.

          In other words, Jesus is telling us that what the Law does not say is just as important as what it does say. That’s actually a general principle in the study of law, but this is the first time I’ve seen it laid out like that in Scripture, and it was nice to see that Jesus did it.

          One of the problems with comparing the passages where the virgin is seduced with the passage where the virgin is forced is a lot of people claim that in the case of the virgin forced it should be *assumed* that the father has the right to annul the marriage. The point is the text does not state that, which highlights the agreement of the virgin in the seduction and the lack of agreement with being forced… which points to Numbers 30:3-5 and the fact the father can annul the marriage agreement only where there was an agreement to annul.

          The text of Numbers 30 makes it clear that if the father refused, he was annulling the marriage after it had already been consummated, not that he was refusing to allow the marriage to take place (how does one annul an agreement that has not taken place?). This goes straight to the acts required to initiate marriage. In the case of the virgin it’s the intent of the man and the consummation of the marriage. That’s it and everything else is window dressing.

          In my book on marriage I use the analogy of an auto dealership. The dealership won’t let the new cars be driven off the lot unless somebody buys it because if they did it’s no longer a “new” vehicle. If somebody buys a new car, takes it around the block and then wants their money back, they don’t get the full price back because they brought back a used car, not a new car.

          If somebody takes a new car without permission, they have to pay for it. But, if the dealership refuses to sell it to them they still have to pay the difference between the new car price and the used car price, because once somebody drives the car off the lot it can never be a “new” car again.

          To carry the analogy a bit further, this is why the dealership has current model year used cars the prospective buyer can take for a test drive without being obligated to purchase the car. After all, once it’s a used car it’s a used car. In fact, the dealership will cheerfully sell a customer a vehicle they use for test drives when the new models come out for a lower price than a new car, and the buyer can test drive the exact car they intend to buy without any obligation to purchase it.

          (Actually, this particular analogy is why I stopped letting people who live close to me read my draft manuscripts. I’m now getting comments/questions about a “test drive” when going out for the evening. Unfortunately it’s an imperfect analogy because it isn’t possible to test drive two or more cars at once…)

          It’s also why taking a car from an auto dealership isn’t a crime if you pay for it (it’s for sale, after all), but taking a car that’s privately owned is called theft (it’s owned, not for sale) and there are penalties.

          That is the real problem for men- marrying a woman who doesn’t have a clear title because she actually belongs to someone else and then investing a huge chunk of their life into her. The guy gets penalized for being lied to because he committed a crime: Luke 12:47-48a

          “And that servant who knew his master’s desire, and did not prepare, nor did according to his desire, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he who did not know, yet did what deserved flogging, shall be beaten with few.”

          The problem is there’s no way to know if a woman is telling the truth about her sexual history, which goes a long way toward toward explaining the death penalty in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 for the woman who claims to be a virgin and marries a guy when she isn’t a virgin. It also explains why the guy she lost her virginity to doesn’t get any penalty- he was her husband when she committed adultery by marrying another guy. And the guy who “officially” married her? He was the victim too.

      • I have heard people say “why obsess about virginity?” As if it is some prudish old fashioned hang up. It’s been completely devalued by most of society to the point that people in the culture at large would simply expect their marriage partner would NOT be a virgin. I do know several couples who met young, were each other’s first and only, and are still together and going strong 25+ years later. If nothing else, there’s a simplicity about it. No baggage. No prior heartbreak from repeated break ups. Clearly if you line that scenario up with a marriage of two partners who have been thru the casual sex wringer repeatedly…. There’s a difference. Someone put it to me like this once, it’s kindof like tape. The first time it bonds best. Every time you peel it up and put it back, less so each time. Eventually if repeated over and over there is no bonding at all. We should be telling the youth this, not just educating them about how to avoid pregnancy.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    Toad… I don’t want to hijack your threads. What are your boundaries. Do you prefer I post my contraryness in the comments, or set up a separate blog. I think your view of divorce and remarriage and whoredom are off; and they unbalance the system. And it will take quite a bit of data to show why you are wrong, since the one-liners didn’t sway you. Kudos for getting polygamy right.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Sex with a virgin does NOT trigger marriage. It triggers the OBLIGATIONS of marriage ($$$), but actual marriage only happens if daddy (or guardian) approve. Sex does not mean marriage. Sex outside of marriage is theft. Theft from the womans owner/guardian.

    If a woman has no owner/guardian, she is free to choose one. Once she has chosen one, all the rules apply.

    Since the government is the real father of modern women, and the government allows women to sex and marry whoever they want, then sex means nothing. What means something is if the woman agrees to transfer her allegiance from the government, to the man she calls “husband”. Once she does, she is married. Until she does, it is just whoring around.

    • Sex with a virgin does NOT trigger marriage. It triggers the OBLIGATIONS of marriage ($$$), but actual marriage only happens if daddy (or guardian) approve.

      If you had read Numbers 30:2-5 you’d know you have this backward. The father has the right to annul or otherwise rescind any agreement or vow a daughter makes. By claiming the act of taking her virginity is not the consummation of her marriage, you are claiming some other act will. Yet, the requirement to pay the dowry (bride price for virgins) is not tied to a timetable nor is there any requirement to pay it immediately. It is not possible to annul a marriage that hasn’t happened and the comparison to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (in which the virgin was forced and made no agreement)
      indicates that the father in Exodus 22:16-17 is exercising his right to annul the marriage under the authority of Numbers 30:3-5.

      Sex does not mean marriage.

      This is the central point of your argument, and the reason it fails is you are trying to lump all women into the same category when the Bible clearly does not. There are virgins and those who are not. Of those who are not, we have married women, widows, divorced women and those who are not virgins and not married. The widows and divorced women have the capacity to consent or not consent to marriage, as well as the non-married non-virgin who is no longer living in her father’s house. For these women sex does not mean marriage without the express agreement on the part of both the man and the woman. The point is a virgin is a marriage in a box. You open it, you own it, now you have to pay for it. As for the others…

      Still have the box it came in...

      Essentially you are trying to claim the act of seducing the virgin is to initiate some sort of betrothal period tied to a payment of the dowry, seemingly to support your idea that marriage is whoredom, yet there is no textual support to this. It also runs contrary to the text and intent of Numbers 30, which is an annulment of an agreement with obligating consequences after the fact (and if you don’t believe marriage is an agreement with obligating consequences I invite you to solicit the opinions of a married woman).

      Since the government is the real father of modern women, and the government allows women to sex and marry whoever they want, then sex means nothing. What means something is if the woman agrees to transfer her allegiance from the government, to the man she calls “husband”. Once she does, she is married. Until she does, it is just whoring around.

      If you really believe that load of shit you’re wasting time talking to me. In doing so you’ve elevated the state to the position of God, an act known as idolatry. Worse yet, you give legitimacy to the state to make the claim that it is a god, and offer your pinch of incense to the genius of Caesar as you do so.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        How many fathers have you talked to about marrying their daughters, and they say “she is an adult, she can do whatever she wants”? These modern fathers have given ownership to the state. Therefore, the state is the real father. A bad father, but a father. That is why the agents of the state (the police) intervene in domestic disputes. And always in favor of the “daughter”.

        • Mycroft, one can delegate authority but not responsibility. The father delegating the authority to the daughter means he is agreeing to not annul her decision in this area: it does not in any way give responsibility for his daughter to the State.

          As to why the agents of the State intervene in domestic issues, it all goes back to the marriage license which makes the State a party to the marriage. That is where the State got the authority to require compulsory education and vaccinations and they always cited their “equitable interest” in the children. This is now so well established in American jurisprudence that it is completely assumed. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about and your assumptions are completely erroneous.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Erroneous? Look up “parens patriae”. The state claims fathership of all citizens, and most people have given in and accepted that claim. Child Protection Services exists to disabuse parents of the notion that they are the real parents.

        Slavery wasn’t abolished; the King enslaved everyone, with himself as the sole owner.

        • Yes, Mycroft, erroneous.

          Under what rubric did the state get said “parens patriae? I already gave you the answer. A license is a permission from a competent authority to do something that would otherwise be illegal, a tort or a trespass.

          The possession of said license is the prima facie evidence that the individual has no right to engage in the licensed activity. The issuing authority has the right to regulate said activity and the licensee is obligated to obey the rules along with any changes to the rules.

          As a party to the marriage the state claims an equitable interest in all assets of the marriage, of which the children are the most valuable.

          You are also incorrect in stating that the Roman doctrine of parens patriae as applied to the United States is the claim by the government that they are the parent. It is actually a claim of equitable interest in the children and the authority to act “in loco parentis” that they exercise (if they feel it is necessary) to protect their equitable interest in the child.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        You call it erroneous, but what is the functional difference between what I said, and what you said? (loco parentis, parens patriae)

  5. OKRickety says:

    Artisinal Toad,

    There are multiple passages in Scripture that deal with marriage, but the critical passage is Exodus 22:16-17 because that passage clearly states when a man and a virgin have sex they are married unless the father refuses to allow it.

    The act of annulling the marriage was to rescind the woman’s agreement and invalidate the marriage after the fact, not to prevent it, and the father had 24 hours (“on the day”) to annul her agreement.

    However, we notice that in verse 16, this Law specifically applies to “between a man and his wife; and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father’s house.” The father does not have the right to annul the marriage of a woman who gave her virginity to a man while no longer in her youth, living in her father’s house.

    Firstly, it would be helpful if you would clarify that “verse 16” in the last quote is referring to Numbers 30:16, because you never refer to this verse otherwise.

    It seems to me that you are taking “this Law” from Numbers 30 and applying it to Exodus 22:16-17. What is your basis for doing this?

    However, one thing we do not want to do is create a doctrine based on a shaky foundation, so we must rigorously test this.

    Do you want to “create a doctrine”? That sounds much like adding to the Law.

    The on-point passages are Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 28-29; Numbers 30:2-5 and Judges 21.

    Just how is the passage about vows to the Lord found in Numbers 30 “on-point” to the concept of marriage? Are you proposing that having sex is making a vow to the Lord?

    Just how is the passage about getting wives for the tribe of Benjamin in Judges 21 “on-point” to the concept of marriage? I find it interesting that Judges 21:25 says that “In those days … everyone did what was right in his own eyes”. Although the Lord allowed it, did He approve of it?

    I have spent the past few years studying Biblical family, marriage and sex; and the results of that study have been surprising.

    Have you studied the Jewish Talmud in regards to marriage? I would think that thousands of years of Jewish scholarship would be able to provide significant insight into these passages.

    I have learned from your writing, both here and in other places. Some of it has surprised me, but I want to know the truth.

    However, if this post is indicative of the results of your studies (and I think it is), I am impressed only by the earnestness with which you espouse your beliefs. Unfortunately, I think many of your beliefs are “based on a shaky foundation”, especially those related to marriage and sex.

    The point is, as a Christian, you either want to please God or you don’t, which means you either commit yourself to being obedient to the Word or you don’t. Think about it.

    I agree. Obedience is necessary, but must be preceded by knowing the Word.

    • It seems to me that you are taking “this Law” from Numbers 30 and applying it to Exodus 22:16-17. What is your basis for doing this?

      In contrasting Exodus 22:16-17 with Deuteronomy 22:28-29, there is a change of circumstances in that the virgin is seduced (she agrees to have sex) in the first and the virgin is forced (she does not agree to have sex) in the second. In the first case the virgin seduced has agreed and the father has the right to “refuse” the marriage. In the second case the virgin forced made no agreement and there is no mention of the father’s right to refuse the marriage, under circumstances that would indicate the father would be far more inclined to refuse.

      This dichotomy is, in my opinion, best explained by the fact that the father has the right to annul and forswear any agreement or vow his daughter makes in her youth while living in his house.

      Just how is the passage about vows to the Lord found in Numbers 30 “on-point” to the concept of marriage? Are you proposing that having sex is making a vow to the Lord?

      Hopefully I just explained that, but I will re-emphasize that the passage in question (Exodus 22:16-17) discusses sex with a virgin and the result of taking her virginity is marriage, absent an annulment by her father.

      Thus, her agreement to have sex with the guy, knowing she is a virgin, knowing that the result of that act results in marriage, is the act of agreeing to be married. This is further emphasized by the fact that the father’s right to annul a vow or “rash statement by her lips by which she has bound herself” only comes after the fact when he hears of it. Likewise, the man who has sex with the virgin, knowing she is a virgin, knowing that the result of that act is to initiate marriage, is making a commitment to marry her with his actions because he is taking something that cannot be restored (her virginity).

      I would suggest that anyone who believes Exodus 22:16-17 grants a father a special right to annul the marriage of his no-longer virgin daughter when she was seduced but not if she’s forced explain the dichotomy and why the application of Numbers 30 is not appropriate. Based on the text of those two passages, the agreement of the virgin contrasted with the lack of agreement of the virgin points straight to the fathers right to annul his daughters vows, agreements and “rash words.”

      I’m quite sure this is extremely difficult for modern Christians to comprehend because modern Christians have been raised and educated in a fem-centric system that says “sex does not equal marriage.” That particular turd of feminist wisdom is completely at odds with Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:2, both of which state clearly that having sex with a virgin results in marriage, with only two exceptions given. In the first, it’s the annulment of the father, in the second it is if they are not discovered.

      In fact, I listed the story in Judges of the 200 men of Benjamin who seized the virgins at Shiloh as relevant because there is no question that they were discovered or that those women became their wives. I politely refrained from speculating on whether the fathers would be more upset over the implication that they had broken their vow to not give any man of Benjamin a wife than the apparent lack of payment to the fathers of the girls by the men… leaving that to anyone who decided to really study the issue.

      As I see it, this issue boils down to three things:

      First, who has the authority to initiate marriage? Genesis 2:24 says it is the man. Not the family, community, church or state because the authority to initiate marriage was given to the individual man. This is the first point of context in which to “take” the passages in question.

      Second, what is required of a man to initiate marriage? The ONLY passages that specifically describe this are Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. When we look at those passages alone we see the virgin has no agency, meaning her consent or non-consent to marriage is irrelevant. We also see that the act of deflowering the virgin always results in a marriage, with certain exceptions. Thus, the rule is taking a woman’s virginity means the man is married to her (with certain exceptions).

      Third, we can glean from other points in Scripture (1st Corinthians 7:39 comes to mind) that a widow or a (legitimately) divorced woman has agency to consent or not consent to marriage and therefore her consent must be obtained prior to marriage.

      Therefore, we can conclude that in the case of a virgin, a marriage is initiated with the act of sex, which is the consummation of the marriage. In the case of a woman who is not a virgin, a marriage is initiated by the agreement between man and woman to marry and the consummation of the marriage (sex).

      Unfortunately, I think many of your beliefs are “based on a shaky foundation”, especially those related to marriage and sex.

      You are free to hold your own opinions, but I think that if you examine the issue in context, you’ll see that I’m right. Whether the issue is the initiation of marriage, polygyny, divorce within the church, adultery or female-female sexual contact, Scripture is very clearly in support of the positions I’ve taken.

      In fact, the arguments I get opposed to the positions I’ve taken grow sillier and sillier each time as my opponents grow closer to the point of actually saying “you’re wrong because tradition says you are.”

      You asked about doctrine. A doctrine is a general teaching that is supposed to be supported by Scripture. An example of a doctrine is “Divorce is allowed for Christians for reasons of adultery.” I vehemently disagree with such a doctrine because it’s not only contrary to what Scripture says, but that same doctrine is invariably taught alongside the doctrine that “Christians are no longer under the Law” (which is partially incorrect, but that’s another story).

      The hypocrisy of the doctrine of divorce is thus evident, because it’s based on Matthew 19:3-9 in which Jesus was interpreting the Law, specifically Deuteronomy 24:1-3; while Christ gave specific instructions to His church in 1st Cor. 7:10-11 in which He prohibited divorce to married believers. Following that, the Apostle Paul offered an exception, divorce being allowed in the case of the Christian married to the unbeliever who would not live with them. However, for two believers married to each other, there is no divorce, no exceptions.

      That was not a change to the Law inasmuch as it only applied (as stated in the text) to Christians, who are servants of the Lord, purchased by Him for His service. The point is reinforced by the prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, also specific to Christians, that Christians are not to join the members of Christ to a whore. Just as with divorce, the use of prostitutes was not prohibited in the Law but it is specifically forbidden to Christians.

      The traditional opposition to those positions are all the result of Catholic teachings that were instituted between 500 and 1500 AD and they were put in place for two reasons. The first was the rejection of any form of sexual pleasure, even within marriage, to the point that sex for the purpose of pleasure (for example- if she was pregnant0 was said to be a sin. The second, and more important with respect to doctrine, was the war the church engaged in with the nobility in its attempt to become a large, powerful monolithic organization with control of the temporal realm as well as the spiritual one.

      Brundage’s book “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” was his 674 page magnum opus. It contains extremely well-documented example after example of how and why the church created the teachings and doctrines it has with respect to marriage and sex. The reader is left with no other conclusion than such teachings had nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with controlling the nobility through the control of marriage.

      This really all boils down to a few things and suddenly it’s all inter-connected. Who has the authority to initiate a marriage and by what acts are marriages initiated? We notice that the grant of authority provided no instruction on the form or process of initiating marriage, so it is most appropriate to look to the Law first and then to the New Testament for such instruction. I’ve already listed the relevant passages from the Law and there is nothing in the New Testament that provides instruction on the initiation of marriage.

      Since Genesis 2:24 contains no restriction on how many marriages a man may initiate, the study of polygyny is appropriate and we discover that no-where in all of Scripture is it forbidden. On the contrary, God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny. The vehement condemnation of polygyny is the prima facie evidence of the power of tradition in this case.

      What happens when a man has more than one wife and decides he wants to play with all his toys at once? Did God provide any rules for the marital bed? As a matter of fact, He did, but in doing so He said nothing at all about female-female sexual contact. Absolute silence on that one in the Law and the New Testament.

      Likewise, since Genesis 2:24 grants no authority to the man to terminate a marriage it is significant that Jesus quoted that passage in Matthew 19:2-9 on the subject of divorce before saying “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Equally significant is His comment “but from the beginning it was not this way” because it specifically points to the lack of authority on the part of the man to terminate a marriage (divorce). Yet, for the hardness of their hearts Moses “permitted” the men to divorce their wives, so Jesus interpreted the justification for divorce of “she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her” to mean only sexual immorality.

      Later, speaking to the church, Christ forbade divorce between married believers, which was completely in line with what He said in Matthew 19. Amazing, isn’t it, that Christians fight tooth and nail for the “right” to divorce. It seems that “hardness of heart” was not confined to men or to the time of Moses.

      The issue of the initiation of marriage (when is the virgin actually married and to whom?) and the issue of divorce (is the woman legitimately divorced) leads to the issue of adultery. Matthew 5:31-32 makes it very clear that God will not honor an illegitimate divorce because the only way the woman could commit adultery was if she was still married to the husband that illegitimately divorced her for reasons other than sexual immorality.

      Throw it all together and stir well. What gets filtered out at the end of the process is this: If the virgin is married to the man who takes her virginity (absent the annulment of her father) and if the legitimately married woman who was later illegitimately divorced woman is still married to her original husband, it becomes obvious that the vast majority of “married” couples in the church are not actually married to each other, rather, they are living in an adulterous relationship.

      You may disagree with my exegesis, but don’t tell me I’m wrong, show me where I’m wrong. If ever I wished to be wrong, this is it.

  6. Pingback: The Virginity Curse | Notes From a Red Pill Girl

  7. iamadamalan says:

    Gen 2:24 “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

    Does sex form the marriage, or is it the leaving and cleaving? Clearly sex is part of it, but it is that in isolation? It is not clear from the scriptures that the act of loosing virginity itself forms the marriage as opposed to triggering events that lead to marriages.

    Marriages weren’t being created by loosing virginity in isolation. It was the triggering event in a social system that ensured the strength of marriage and society by ensuring marriages were formed to virgins.

    The problem is, in a system such as ours, there is no greater system of ensuring marriages to virgins. You can say loosing virginity creates marriage, but that has no practical affect at all. She may loose her virginity to the first of many partners before her state marriage, but there is never any functional marriage. Never any leaving and cleaving until the state marriage.

    If we were to take your approach, we are stuck in a situation where most people won’t change because of the massive harm it would cause to families being broken up while the godly men are stuck with no one to marry for lack of virgins. To fix our present situation could literally take breaking virtually every marriage and family up and rearranging them; with all the attendant harm to children that would entail.

    But must we be stuck in this hyperliteral approach? Did not even Christ say that the OT system (w.r.t. divorce) was one allowed by Moses due to the hardness of their hearts. It wasn’t what God wanted, but it was allowed for the time being.

    We may likewise need to hew a more pragmatic path to chart our way out of this back to the system God intends. Hold to the ideal plan for our virgin daughters. But for the rest, a more practical approach. I don’t see where Ezra’s approach must be taken, given that we don’t live under an injunction against marrying foreigners. We are not a pure nation nor a theocracy nor are most of our marriages to actual foreigners.

    • It isn’t just Genesis 2:24. We also have to consider Exodus 22:16-17 as well as Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and even Numbers 30. In totality, it’s pretty clear that taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her.

      That simple point, and really, that *is* the point- otherwise how is it that Deut. 22:28-29 says a man who is discovered taking a virgin by force is married to her, no exceptions… but that simple point means that every woman who is not a virgin is married *unless* her father annulled her marriage.

      That is the point of Exodus 22:16-17. There is literally no other outcome if a virgin voluntarily gives a man her virginity. She is married to that man and the only question is whether her father annuls the marriage. How many fathers know they have that authority and/or responsibility; and how many daughters tell their fathers what they’ve done in that area of their lives?

      In terms of the reference to Ezra, the command to not take foreigners for wives was not a death penalty offense. Adultery is.

      To fix our present situation could literally take breaking virtually every marriage and family up and rearranging them; with all the attendant harm to children that would entail.

      No, I disagree. I believe that probably at least 80% of the problem can be solved by the fathers, because Numbers 30 says the father has the right to annul a daughters vows/agreements “in the day he hears of it.” There is no time limit on this. The other aspect of this is if the husband is involved he can divorce his wife for adultery, which she surely has committed. With no state involvement it’s as simple as writing on a piece of paper that he is divorcing her for adultery and signing it.

      In some cases, with a Christian husband and a Christian wife, where the father is no longer available, there is nothing to be done. But the fact this is such a huge problem is actually a good thing in terms of having an open discussion and doing something about it.

  8. @ Toad I find this “loophole” of asking the father to deny the union, perhaps years after the fact, or obtaining a written divorce from the cherry popper perhaps also decades later a bit “legalistic.” Not that I don’t want an out clause, being in this sticky wicket myself, but those kinda seem like cop outs to me? Can you explain your thoughts here?

    Also, different topic, but why do you do good deeds for the most horrid folks you can? Do you hope they will have an epiphany and perhaps soften their heart or is it more raining kindness upon thine enemies? Just curious… Fun idea, btw.

    • I go by exactly what Numbers 30 says, which is that when the father hears of his daughters agreement or vow, in the day he hears of it he can annul it. if he does not annul it then it stands and she is obligated.

      There isn’t a time limit on that and given the text, it’s obvious that the father has the authority and given that marriage is for life… it seems that it’s reasonable for the father to still have the authority to annul the agreement years after the fact if that is when he first “hears of it.”

      It’s one thing to find out your daughter went to a bar, which the father might not approve of, but to learn later that she *bought* the bar is a different story.

      As to why I prefer the most horrid folks I can… it’s more fun. What I notice most is that there’s a huge element of pride involved and knowing someone helped them do something they couldn’t do is usually a huge poke to the pride. Which can cause some interesting activity after the fact.

      • iamadamalan says:

        I shall quote Exodus, the Deut passage is similar in its basic construct (just lacking the unless)…

        “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. 17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.”

        Notice the form. IF [sex] THEN [shall be wife] unless [father refuses]. No where does is say that sex creates the marriage. To the contrary is says ‘she shall be’ his wife. I’m not sure the tense in the original language but in English that is future tense.

        But even ignoring the tense issue the implication is clear, the consequence of sex is they are to be married. But it doesn’t say sex forms the marriage.

        Notice what happens after the sex: the father gives or refuses to give her. This is the other half of the leave and cleave construct. Usually its in that order, leave then cleave (i.e. consumate the marriage). But in this case the scripture teaches if there is a cleaving, there should be a leaving to create a marriage.

        This is much the same as our current wedding ceremony where the father gives away the bride. Until she is given there is no marriage.

        There is nothing in this passage to indicated the Gen 2:24 leave and cleave construct for creation of marriage is changed. Rather this is an enforcement of it.

        • Notice what happens after the sex: the father gives or refuses to give her. This is the other half of the leave and cleave construct. Usually its in that order, leave then cleave (i.e. consumate the marriage). But in this case the scripture teaches if there is a cleaving, there should be a leaving to create a marriage.

          The problem is you’re trying to read a marriage ceremony into the text, which doesn’t exist. “The father gives or refuses to give” is incorrect. The fact that he didn’t give her (she gave herself) means he has the right to annul the agreement, but the guy has already consummated the marriage.

          What you are really fighting for is the authority of who controls the initiation of marriage and you’re using an argument that was developed about 1300 years ago. Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist in the text of Genesis 2:24 or in Exodus 22:16-17. In the Exodus passage, aside from the father refusing (annulling the marriage that has already been consummated) here is no path that does not lead to marriage. They have become one flesh, blood was shed and the marital covenant was initiated.

  9. And also I do echo the point made above that while 80% of marriages may fall into this category, would the resulting re shifting of the sands be worth all the upheaval? Would you advise these families to separate to make it right? Or? Also just curious your thinking here…

    • Given that we currently have about a 50% divorce rate for the adulterous unions we’re looking at, I actually think this would be better. I’m guessing that in about 80% of the cases of a man to another man’s wife, said wife can either get the marriage annulled by her father or get a certificate of divorce from her husband for adultery. That only works for a non-Christian husband because a Christian husband is forbidden to divorce his Christian wife.

      For some of them, yes, it’s a can of worms, but what’s the alternative? What the leadership of the church hundreds and hundreds of years ago did was put the church on a course that made this possible. Everything was hunky-dory until feminism (which the church also created) tore down the social structures and women went wild.

      Everything was fine until it wasn’t. Now, what happens? It’s either bite the bullet and take the pain of fixing the problem according to God’s rules, or just ignore God’s rules… and then what?

      As best as I can tell, ignoring what God said and doing the things God said not to do has never worked out well for anyone, anywhere. The problem is this requires a complete paradigm shift, inasmuch as the entire language has been structured to support the decisions the church made all those years ago.

      I’ve said it before, but when the church decided *they* decided what marriage was and when a couple was married, that was the beginning of all of it because God did not give the church that authority. It was given to the man.

      So when somebody says “having sex with a virgin does not mean you’re married” you might as well go ahead and add the last part- “only the church (and now the state) decides when someone is married.”

      And… like I pointed out, that does not agree with what God said.

      Feminist: ‘Women decide when they are married and when to end it’

      Church: ‘We decide when a couple is married because our traditions say so.’

      God: ‘Who are you going to believe? The crazy cat woman, the guy with the funny hat or me?

      • iamadamalan says:

        This sounds an aweful lot like a paperwork exercise. We’re going to get it annulled due to adultery anyway so no big deal right?

        Actually, that won’t work. As the Christian women must either go back to her husband or remain single per 1 Cor 7. So you are back to breaking up families, one way or another, with the necessary harm to children entailed. You are advocating breaking up families to satisfy a questionable definition of marriage.

        You are forgetting love, which is the whole of the law anyway. Why break up a marriage and take children from the father in order to marry some guy who is not their father and she found unsuitable to be married to in the first place?

        Now were we dealing with a women who divorsed a man unbiblically and took his children to marry another, there is a loving case to be had for breaking that and sending her back (where there no kids by the new marriage esp.). But breaking up a legitimate family to send her back to some one night stand 30 years ago? That accomplishes nothing.

        Now what of this? In our culture fathers have delegated the authority to decide who to marry to their daughters. Could we not say then, even under your interpretation, that the father DID decide not to give her to him (albeit via the delegated authority in the daughter)?

        Good luck collecting that bride price, the courts won’t recognize OT law as valid. Which brings up a larger matter the cuts all this down.

        In Matthew 23:2 Jesus says to obey the Parasees as they sit in Moses seat. They are in authority and so obey them. Moses himself modified God’s will on divorce for practice matters (their hard hearts necessitated it). We could likewise say that today, US and state law governs marriage, as Moses’ OT law did back then, and we should therefor obey that. It may not rise to God’s ideal plan (which neither was Moses’ form of marriage) but it is what it is.

  10. iamadamalan says:

    Toad, you are 90% right on this marriage issue. But this sex creates the marriage is not just wrong, it creates a huge distraction from the greater issue by unecessarily opening a can of worms that is nigh impossible to deal with.

    We’ll have enough problems getting marriage back to its intention of marriage to virgin daughters with no possibility of divorce without adding to it this and having to tell 80% of the men in the church they must divorce their wife and break up their marriage.

    And this later issue, for the most part, doesn’t help fix things going forward. To fix things we need fathers to keep their daughters virginal, raise them with the expectation and desire to marry young and have babies, and marry them off to Christian men. That is what will fundamentally change marriage back to what it was meant to be.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Sex is the act that SHOULD verify a marriage. But it doesn’t create it. Only the hand-off from the woman’s rightful owner to the new husband is legitimate. Sex only puts the man on the hook for the COST of marriage; the woman’s guardian decides if the man also gets to have the BENEFITS of marriage. This whole “sex creates marriage” idea gives incentive to men to just grab a woman and sleep with her, and undermines patriarchal authority.

      Remember, when Shechem treated Dinah like a whore, two of her brothers killed him and his entire family. And God blessed Levi because of that, with an everlasting priesthood.

      • Only the hand-off from the woman’s rightful owner to the new husband is legitimate.

        Read Deuteronomy 22:28-29. There is no hand-off if they are discovered, they are married and the Father has nothing to do with it. Again, read Genesis 2:24, the authority to initiate marriage is given to the Man and it says nothing about the father handing off the bride.

        As far as the claim that God blessed Levi for his role in the murder of Dinah’s husband and his people, No. What they did was the equivalent of telling the men they had to become Christians as a condition of the marriage and then drowning them in the Baptismal pool. Levites got the priesthood because when Moses came down off the Mountain and found the people playing the harlot with the golden calf, he called out “Who is for the Lord?” It was the sons of Levi who responded. For that they got the Levitical priesthood, not for what happened with Dinah.

        You may be thinking of Phineas and the Phineas priesthood. That was a righteous killing. The murder of their brother-in-law by Dinah’s brothers was definitely not righteous.

    • Adam, I’m replying to both of your previous comments in this one.

      As the Christian women must either go back to her husband or remain single per 1 Cor 7.

      No. Her father has the right to annul the marriage when he hears of it. Her unbelieving husband has the right to divorce her for adultery. That probably covers about 80% of the problem right there. If the unbelieving husband won’t give her a certificate of divorce but he won’t move her in and take care of her, then he’s the unbelieving husband who will not consent to live with her (1st Cor. 7:15).

      In fact, if the so-called Christian husband refuses to be reconciled to her and will not consent too live with her then he’s in violation of a whole bunch of stuff and it’s appropriate to apply Matthew 18:15-17 to the situation using the standard of 1st John 2:3-5 and excommunicate him. That makes him the unbelieving husband who will not consent to live with her.

      However, you will probably see that as a “legalistic” response and I understand. The problem is Adultery has a spot on the 10 commandments and it’s right up there with murder, both of which are death-penalty offenses. Yes, you’re in Christ, your sins have been forgiven. But we also know that a Christian cannot continue in sin. The bottom line is if someone in your church ditched their husband and kids to shack up with some other guy, you’d tell her she was in sin and needed to stop committing adultery. The reason you’d do that is it doesn’t happen that often… supposedly.

      The problem is it’s everywhere and you’re saying “the problem is too big! It’s too much! Let’s just continue in sin and let it go.”

      We’ll have enough problems getting marriage back to its intention of marriage to virgin daughters with no possibility of divorce without adding to it this and having to tell 80% of the men in the church they must divorce their wife and break up their marriage.

      I never said 80% of the married men have to divorce their wives. First, I already explained that most of the problem can be solved by terminating the real marriage that the woman has as the result of giving her virginity to some guy without her father’s knowledge or permission; Dad not even knowing that the act created a marriage. Second, the fact is these guys who didn’t “marry” a virgin aren’t actually married, they’re living in an adulterous relationship. They can’t get divorced (although that’s what the state will require) because they were never lawfully married.

      Nope, the real problem is not with the men, it’s with the women and what happens when you put that gold-plated excuse in front of a married woman:

      “You mean, I’m not really married to him and we’re just committing adultery?”

      Yes, that’s correct.

      “So if I divorce him it isn’t actually a divorce, I’m just getting out of a state-sanctioned adulterous relationship?”

      Yes, that’s correct.

      “And if I then get my real marriage annulled or get a certificate of divorce I’m no longer married and it isn’t a sin if I have sex with a guy without being married to him?”

      Yes, that’s correct, but don’t you think the right thing to do is to stop committing adultery and honor the vows you made to the father of your children?

      “What?!! And give up my one chance at freedom? No WAY!!”

      Stand back and watch the *avalanche* of divorce filings as these women who have had their consciences seared by their adulteries use it as an excuse to destroy their families and then openly become raging sluts.

      Is that really a problem? No. This is what Paul talked about when he said they should be turned over to Satan for the mortification of their flesh. And for all those Christian guys who were divorced by their so-called Christian wives, the one’s that weren’t virgins when they got married, they were never married in the first place. They were saved from being forced to actually make the tough call to separate from an adulterous relationship if there was no other solution.

      I guarantee you more of these “good Christian” women will use this as an excuse to bail out on their repulsive husband (he drank the churchian koolaid of mutual submission and servant leadership) and start banging the bad boys again.

      The thing is, the only way this works is to get rid of all the garbage. Stop teaching perverted Catholic doctrine and go back to what the Word says. Yes, that will be considered really, really radical. Because obeying God is always a radical proposition.

      Ditch this garbage about sex not meaning marriage because that’s not what Scripture says with respect to virgins. The church absolutely must start teaching what the Bible says: Marriage is the result of having sex with a virgin or in the case of a non-virgin that is legitimately eligible to marry, the agreement between man and woman to marry followed by sex.

      The church should start teaching everyone to stop getting marriage licenses and instead marry with written contracts of marriage: Marital Covenant’s. Written contracts of marriage spell out all the details and ensure that nobody forgets. While they are a very good idea for monogamous marriage, they should be required for polygynous marriages.

      Ban the pedestalization of women. Women don’t teach and women are to be silent in the church. Any man who uses the words “servant leadership” or “mutual submission” in the context of marriage is to be shown the door and asked to leave. The church must teach what Genesis 3:16 means, because the part about “he shall rule over you” is where you get the NT passages on submission like 1st Peter 3:1 and Ephesians 5:22-24. The idea that Ephesians 5:21 is the “context” is only believable because *nobody* teaches on the curse any more. And the idea that Christ did away with the curse? Hahahaha. Check the zoo. Do snakes still crawl on their bellies? Check the maternity wards. Do women smile and spit them out like watermelon seeds, or do they bring forth their children in pain? I’d guess judging by the number of C-sections and epidurals it’s the latter.

      Polygyny? Not a problem. Let any guy that wants to round up a few sluts, make sure they’re properly annulled or divorced and then marry all of them with the support of the church. As to their sleeping arrangements, it’s nobody’s business but theirs and besides, anything the girls might do in bed together isn’t a sin.

      Divorce? For two Christians married to one another, there is no divorce per 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. Period.

      Porn is not adultery. In fact, adultery is a physical act that requires a married woman. Oh- and those widows and legitimately divorced women, if a husband is banging one of them on the side it isn’t adultery but he should be *seriously* encouraged to marry her. Nobody should have to test drive a car more than a couple of times to know whether they want to buy it or not. If not, move on. But that doesn’t mean going from one place to the next, always the test drive but never the purchase. That’s fraud.

      Looking on a woman who is eligible to marry with desire is not lust. Where does that desire lead? Well, if it leads to sex with a virgin, you married her. If she isn’t a virgin (meaning she’s married) it’s adultery. If she has evidence that she is not married, one of several things is going on.

      One, she knows what God’s standards are and she won’t have sex with you until you agree to marry her because the agreement of the man and woman to marry followed by sex is marriage. But that doesn’t require the state or the church to give its approval, even though doing things very publicly is a good idea. What isn’t a good idea is spending obscene amounts of money on a ceremony.

      Two, she knows what God’s standards are and she will have sex with you without any discussion of marriage because the Bible doesn’t say that a non-virgin having sex outside of marriage is a sin. In other words, she’s living for her flesh… what we’d call a slut. Not marriage material. It isn’t a sin if you bang her but it certainly isn’t wise. Herpes is forever and what happens if you knock her up?

      In fact, it’s a great line of questioning for a guy that’s interested in a woman. “Are you a virgin? Because if you’re not, unless you’re properly divorced or your father annulled your marriage, you’re a married woman and I can’t date a married woman because having sex would be adultery.”

      Can you imagine any of the betaboys in church saying something like that? Me neither.

  11. One says:

    Ok, so what about the practical matter of finding a virgin who likes you? I think what you’re writing is neat and maybe so but so what in this day and age. Showing up at even a conservative church won’t get you anywhere if you go virgin seeking. Add in wanting a girl who is attractive and nice and virgin and you’ve got naught unless you want to hang out at middle schools, which will get you a welcome by police. Not judging by the way, nor condoning modernity. I’m thinking how-to, so how? Does God answer this?

    • You may not get a virgin, but that doesn’t mean you can’t find a woman who is eligible to marry.

      The MAJOR reason I advocate polygyny is it’s a suitable marital structure for broken sluts that are, by their own choice of previous behavior, totally unfit for monogamous marriage.

      But that doesn’t answer your question. In order to get the woman you want you need to be the man she wants. Unfortunately virginity isn’t held in much esteem right now so the girls don’t place a great deal of value on it. I’m trying to change that but it takes time. However, my point is that whether a woman is a virgin or not really doesn’t have any impact on what she wants in terms of getting married. At best, she’d see her virginity as something of value she could use to get a more valuable man, but these days a woman’s hymen is considered to be of no more importance than her appendix and a ruptured hymen is considered to be far less of a problem than a ruptured appendix.

      1. Learn game and soak up red pill knowledge and wisdom. This is the most important thing you can do and will do more for you than any single other thing and will make more difference than anything else in hanging on to a marriage if you manage to find a woman that’s wife material. In terms of learning game, it’s difficult to go wrong with RSD Nation. The Alpha Game Plan blog, Rational Male blog and the dark lord at Chateau Heartiste are all worth reading. Rollo Tommassi’s “Rational Male” is an excellent book, as is “Prescriptive Medicine” which is the sequel to “Rational Male.”

      2. Education and career. Be the guy who is well educated and established in his career earning a significant salary. You could be a well-paid employee, a professional or a business owner, but having a high income is a major plus in the provider category. Learning game, which is essentially learned charisma, is a huge plus when it comes to the employment world- especially because HR departments are run by women.

      3. Hit the gym religiously. Depending on where you are when you start, it might take a while, but just about any man can completely transform his physique within 3 years with nothing more than hard work and a good diet. The development of SARM’s is a huge development, essentially providing the gains that steroids do without the nasty side-effects of steroids. Using SARM’s in an intelligent manner, a guy can go from average to impressive in a year with a lot of hard work.

      4. Hand in hand with game, you must develop your own personal style. Part of this is how you dress and act, but deeper than that is your mindset. A good rule of thumb is tools, not toys; education, not entertainment. How you spend your money will speak volumes about your character and values.

      Your goal should be to become one of the top tier men who could, if you wanted to, attract multiple women who were so attracted to you that they’d be willing to share you. Such a top tier man should not have a problem finding a woman for monogamous marriage, but the problem with monogamous marriage is the deck is completely stacked against you.

      I can say from experience that a homesteader lifestyle (if you don’t know what I’m talking about look through some issues of “Backwoods Home” magazine) is a very fulfilling lifestyle and raising children is better done on a farm than anywhere else. I write about this occasionally. Homeschooled country girls from conservative Christian families have a high probability of being virgins as long as they’re living at home.

      If you are intent on finding a virgin (and keep in mind that nothing short of a pelvic exam could “prove” virginity and even then only if the hymen is still intact) beware it’s a problematic issue. Between women exercising strenuously, using tampons and the proliferation of sex toys, intact and undamaged hymens are not that common. And, if the girl knows it’s of importance to you then it’s something she may well lie about if she’s attracted to you and knows it’s deal-breaker for you.

      This will be the subject of a future post, but being judgmental about a woman’s past will kill your relationship or severely stifle it. If you’re worried about the Alpha Widow syndrome, read this post and consider the implications. I catch a lot of flack for saying stuff like that, but it is what it is. If you are willing to accept a woman for a relationship then you should be able to accept her past.

      One thing I can tell you is that unless you are truly top tier, if you’re seeing a woman who is not a virgin you can just plan on having sex long before you get to the point of discussing whether you get married. Even then, refusal to have sex before marriage is perceived as completely beta and treated accordingly. This is going to sound crazy, but take the non-virgin through it and make her have the talk with her father. If she won’t do it she isn’t marriage material. Once she’s done it, she’s now in a position in which she can rationalize having sex (I’m not a virgin, I’m not married, I’m not a prostitute, it’s not a sin), so watch and see how she behaves.

      With a virgin, playing it straight is best, simply tell her that according to the Bible she’s married to the guy that pops her cherry. Period. When you decide she’s the one, you’ll be happy to oblige but until then, no. For a woman who is not a virgin but eligible to marry, according to the Bible it’s only a sin if you are convicted in your conscience that it’s a sin. There is actually no prohibition on having sex outside marriage with a non-prostitute.

      And yes, I catch huge amounts of flack over this one as well, but it’s like buying a car. If you take a brand new car off the lot, you’ve bought it. Used cars, well, nobody cares if you give them a test drive.

      • One says:

        I see more clearly now why you advocate polygyny! That was not clear before and now makes more sense.

        Now you say there is no prohibition on having sex with non-virgins but isn’t that then adultery? Because the women is married to the man she lost her virginity to.

        One question for learning Game, what would be your recommended source? There are all these different interpretations and thoughts about it so it ends up being confusing. If I want some amount of holiness in the process, and I don’t need to go overboard with it, but some, which source deals with that if any?

  12. Marlon says:

    “the Bible doesn’t say that a non-virgin having sex outside of marriage is a sin”

    Is this so? This woman would be a fornicatress/prostitute then, and the Christian man should not marry/sex such a woman due to unequal yoking. There is a case, that of Hosea, where he had to be commanded to marry such a woman.

    In the Old Testament it would not be a sin/failure to marry such a woman — just stupid — but the NT has closed off that avenue. Thoughts?

    • Hi Marlon

      Let’s start with what Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say, which is basically that where there is no Law, there is no violation and no sin is imputed. OK? You cannot break a rule that isn’t there and it isn’t a sin until you break a rule.

      The use of a prostitute by any man, married or not, was NOT a violation of the Law and thus was not sin. That condition changed, for Christians only, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, where a Christian is forbidden to join the members of Christ to a whore.

      Having said that, your analogy with Hosea fails. He was commanded, he obeyed, but there was no prohibition on him marrying such a person *unless* he was a Levite. If he were of the tribe of Levi, that would have been forbidden to him, but when does God command people to violate His own Law? Hmmm?

      Now, what is the definition of the word “fornication?” What is sexual immorality? You’d probably have to work it out yourself, but I can give you the answer, which cycles back to the point of Romans 4:15 and 5:13, that sexual immorality is a violation of the Law. If the act isn’t prohibited in the Law, it isn’t sexual immorality, by definition. Let’s say you’re married with children and the wife goes off to visit her mother for a week or so, alone. While she’s gone, you wind up having sex with the 16 year old (virgin) babysitter. What does the Bible say about that? Did you commit adultery? NO, the babysitter wasn’t married. Premarital sex? NO, that was the consummation of your marriage to her because according to Scripture, you now have a second wife. Later, after things have settled down, you buy a really big bed and permanently move both wives into it. It isn’t long before there isn’t any sexual coupling the three of you could make that hasn’t happened and your wives are very intimately acquainted. Is that a sin? NO.

      The fact that God prohibited (Leviticus 18:22-23) men with men, and men with animals, and women with animals… leaves a huge blank space for “women with women” when it comes to prohibited sex. In fact, God made it perfectly clear He was NOT prohibiting women with women by including the specific prohibition of women with animals. Evidently the girl-girl stuff is like masturbation… it wasn’t worth mentioning.

      In the same way, in the NT, the Apostle Paul gave a *specific* prohibition against *Christians* having sex with prostitutes. But, look closely, he didn’t mention widows or divorced women. Why not? I’ve heard folks say the instruction in 1st Cor. 7, that those who burned with passion should marry, was a prohibition of sex outside marriage. Actually, no. There are multiple points in the NT where specific prohibitions are placed on Christians (1st Cor. 7:10-15, no divorce; 1st Cor. 6:15-16, no whores) and other places where prohibitions in the Law were removed *specifically for Christians* such as Romans 14 and the issue of keeping the Sabbath and eating meat sacrificed to idols. Other than prostitutes, sex outside of marriage with someone who is eligible to marry (meaning, the woman is not already married) is not a sin.

      And all the churchians disagree. This all boils down to one single issue, which is the inspiration of Scripture. Was it written because that’s what God wanted? If yes, deal with it. If no, throw away the Bible and find something else to believe in.

      This must be taken within the context that Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 forbid anyone from adding to the Law or subtracting from the Law. Notice that Paul did not “add to the Law” in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, it is a *specific* prohibition that applies *only* to Christians because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore.

      The only prerequisite for marriage for a woman is that she be eligible to marry the man in question. In general, that means she must not be married and specifically there are areas of miscegenation, incest and other stuff. Everything else is a matter of wisdom.

      If she’s a virgin, taking her virginity means you married her, the act is the consummation of the marriage and thus it is *marital* sex. If she’s no longer a virgin, no longer married and not a prostitute, there is nothing in the Bible that says having sex with such a woman is a sin.


      Romans 14:23- “That which is not of faith is sin.”

      James 4:17- “He who knows the right thing to do but does not do it, to him that is sin.”

      Those two passages mean that even though the Law doesn’t have a prohibition, if your conscience says it’s wrong then it’s wrong for YOU but you’d be in violation if you judged someone else on a matter of conscience, see Romans 14:4.

  13. Marlon says:

    I agree with you and the scripture on your other points. Here is where I am seeking clarity.

    “If she’s no longer a virgin, no longer married and not a prostitute, there is nothing in the Bible that says having sex with such a woman is a sin.”

    I am saying that sex = marriage in this case also. It seems to me you are saying otherwise. Or am I misreading you?

    • First, when I say “sex with such a woman is not a sin” I must point out that there is a caveat to that. Romans 14:23 says “that which is not of faith is sin” and James 4:17 says “If a man knows the right thing to do and does not do it, that is sin to him.”

      The instruction in 1st Corinthians 7 to the virgins and the widows was that if they burned, they should marry, because marriage is the place where sex is supposed to be taking place, along with the after-effect of sex, babies.

      However, at the end of the day, if you’re out with this nice widow-woman and she’s someone you’re seriously considering marriage to… and you wake up the next morning with her in bed with you, you did something that God did not specifically prohibit. Probably wasn’t wise, but if you enjoyed the test drive, put a ring on it.

      I make this point in contra-distinction to the idea that just because God did not specifically prohibit it that a guy can go out and bang all the non-virgin unmarried women he can find.

      Your point of sex=marriage even with a non-virgin might work, except for one thing. Consent. Grab a woman who isn’t a virgin and isn’t married, force her to have sex with you and unlike the virgin, the non-virgin is not automatically married to you.

      The virgin has no agency. Meaning, it doesn’t really matter what she wants, she can be married against her will (Deut. 22:28-29) and she can marry because she desired it (Exodus 22:16-17) and have the marriage annulled if her father doesn’t like it.

      The woman who is not a virgin has agency, meaning her consent to marry is required. God did not prohibit having sex with such a woman and by the same token God didn’t prohibit her from having sex with almost any man regardless of his marital status. However, a non-virgin’s agreement to have sex is *not* the same as her agreeing to get married.

      With her willing agreement to marry you, and I believe a signed marital contract is the best way to do that, having sex with her is the consummation of the marriage.

      Again, all of this hinges on the fact that a virgin does not have agency while a non-virgin who is not married does have agency and her consent to marry is required.

  14. marlon says:

    Clearly explained

  15. Joseph Bleaux says:

    AT, you are not alone in this line of thinking, or stupid for acknowledging the 800 lbs. gorilla in the room. I am a lawyer and think I have above average skills in the areas of logic and reason, yet I cannot explain why christians have accepted the fraud that secular marriage has brought into the church. I have been dealing/suffering with this reality for practically my entire adult life and I am now 41, “married” with two beautiful children . . . but I can’t deny what the scriptures reveal. My wife married as a virgin, gave her virginity to said husband and then 18 months later he divorced her, supposedly because he was “cheating”. The ensuing 8 years between her divorce and our meeting, involved a string of ” monogamous relationships”, all sexual of course. I had been with one whore (divorced and promiscuous) for a couple of years prior to meeting my wife and then upon meeting, we jumped in the sack pretty quick and were “married” 6 months later. Sex was infrequent to begin with, and even that dried up pretty quickly after the wedding. Maybe there was some subconscious guilt/barriers lying beneath that we just didn’t appreciate . . . speaking of the spiritual ties to lovers/spouses of the past here. Has felt like a room mate situation ever since and I have regretted/questioned why I did this almost daily for 15 years now. I found myself for most of my marriage wondering what it would have been like had I been a virgin and married a young virgin . . . to me it would have been paradise on earth! I kept this to myself because society says that is old-fashioned/judgmental/hypocritical and the church teaches that these thoughts are contrary to “grace theology”. . . so I just let it fester for years. I finally started to piece things together through scriptures about 6 years ago and came to the same conclusion as you, that I am in fact married to another mans wife and the only way to get out of this adulterous situation, was a civil divorce, repentance and celibacy. By the time of my awakening, we had a 3 year old son. We now also have a 2 year old daughter who just makes me melt and I fear what a divorce will do to our children. There really is no good option in this situation. I try to tell young people the truth so that they don’t experience this misery, but I don’t know that many have the ears to hear. To borrow a line from Slick Willie, “I feel your pain.” I think with this understanding at least being discussed in christian circles, in conjunction with the MGTOW, etc. movements, we could very well be the last generation before Christ’s return . . . I hope! Luke 23:29 and 1 Timothy 4:3 seem to fit with our times. Your thoughts?

    • Joseph

      I cannot disagree with you strongly enough when you say There really is no good option in this situation.

      You have several problems, all of which are serious. The issue of adultery, the issue of your wife not being attracted to you and the probability that you’re going to be divorced in the near future.

      I suggest you go to this website:

      Get a copy of Married Man Sex Life and read it somewhere your wife won’t find out about it. Between that and Athol’s website (you might want coaching too) your marriage will most likely improve because you’ll become attractive to your wife (if you follow the directions).

      As far as the adultery, if her father is still alive you should consider broaching the subject with him. She doesn’t actually have to be involved and unless this is something you’ve brought up and discussed with her, I suggest skipping any discussions with her for now. If her father isn’t alive or won’t consider it, then assuming that the guy who got her virginity isn’t a Christian, a certificate of divorce for adultery is in order. I have it on the authority of the chief justice of the State of New York that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, so I cannot see why you could not get a piece of paper saying “(her name), I divorce you for adultery. (signed, husband)”

      At any rate, the dead bedroom you’re describing is a huge red flag that says she’s not attracted to you. You’re attorney, which says “provider role” and that means at some point you’re headed for divorce court. She may be planning that right now, but don’t allow this to happen. Your kids deserve to have both Mom and Dad raising them and you do not want to go through the divorce mill. In case you need encouragement from top divorce attorneys, I suggest you look up your state here:

      Regardless of how guilty you might feel, your children do not deserve to be punished for what you’ve done. You’re the man, so fix it. You can start by reading three books.

      The Married Man Sex Life primer is a really good choice for you, as well as “The Rational Male” and “Preventative Medicine” both by Rollo Tomassi.

      My general advice is learn game, hit the gym and make more money. Assuming you have an adequate income, your #1 job is to become a more attractive husband. MMSL will explain that. Make your plan and stick with it, because your kids are depending on you. Let me know how it goes.

  16. Some guy says:

    I think there is a path not covered in your flow charts.

    If a female loses her virginity to an unlawful/forbidden sexual union, such as incest, is a marriage formed? Or, is she just no longer a virgin?

    • Sorry I missed this comment. I think the answer to your question is that no, there can be no lawful marriage between two individuals forbidden to marry. Because the sexual act is forbidden between certain individuals such as close family members, while there is a loss of virginity on the woman’s part there is no marriage created because the act to consummate the marriage is forbidden. In other words, stealing something doesn’t make it yours. And, it could be worse, because some forbidden sexual acts might result in sanctions. The Law makes allowances for mens rhea, but I don’t have any examples of a judgment in such a situation.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s