The Lie That Caused The Adultery Epidemic


“Sex doesn’t make you married.  There must be a ceremony!”

They say you can’t fight tradition and of all the things I’ve written about, the one thing that gets the most negative response is stating that under certain conditions just having sex, regardless of intentions, can and will make the two married.  “Sex makes you married” flies in the face of over a thousand years of churchian lies, in which the Easter Bunny claims sex does not make one married, that a marriage requires a ceremony of some sort or another officiated by a third party.  He says that any sex before an official wedding ceremony is “fornication” or “premarital sex” and a woman who does that kind of thing is a harlot.

This is the most important issue I’ve written about and according to the Bible, my critics are wrong.  In some cases it’s tradition-driven ignorance and in other cases it’s willful disbelief, some having their heads up their asses, refusing to look at the Scriptures, while others know the truth but choose to support a lie.  Because the Easter Bunny said so and they don’t want to make anyone upset.  Especially the adulterous wenches in the church.  The ones they’re married to.

The truth is that for a virgin who is not formally engaged, having sex with an eligible man (not incest or ineligible because of a betrothal contract) means she is married to that man.   His intent is irrelevant because for a man the act of having sex is to demonstrate his commitment to marry and to consummate the marriage at the same time.  It’s the same as signing a contract to buy a car.  His commitment to purchase and the actual purchase of the car takes place with the single act of signing the contract.  According to the Bible, the virgins intent and consent to marry is completely irrelevant and it doesn’t matter whether she consents or not.

conned about marriageYes, ladies, you married the guy you gave your virginity to.

Since this is so contrary to tradition, I’m going to demonstrate what the Bible actually says and why it means that for a virgin, sex does make you married.  You may not like it (probably won’t) but God didn’t ask your opinion on this.  As Scripture says, “does the pot speak back to the potter?”  If that’s the case you either don’t believe He has the right to order your life His way, or you don’t believe this is what He said.  I’ll first lay out what Scripture says, then I’ll explain the lies the church has told.

The Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24) is pretty straight-forward if you know what you’re looking at.  The problem is looking at what the words say and getting what the words mean in order to understand.  In order to do this we have to interpret Scripture with Scripture.  The following graphic explains what is really happening.

comments 50

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh.”

Genesis 2:24 has just 24 words.  Leaving his father and mother is a status change, in that he is no longer under the authority of his father and mother as part of his father’s household, he is setting up his own household in which he will be in authority over his wife.

The thing everyone has trouble with is “shall cleave to his wife and they shall become one flesh” and the question is what that actually means.  Beginning about 1500 years ago, the Easter Bunny (he really hates sex and sexual pleasure) decided that contrary to what the Bible says, marriage was just a commitment and the commitment should be separated as far from the sexual aspects of marriage as possible.  He made the claim that the “shall cleave” portion of Genesis 2:24 meant the couple was to have a public ceremony blessed by the church in front of witnesses and redefined the “shall become one flesh” to be the sex part that happened only after the ceremony.

1881472107_10fa028611Almost all Christians believe the Easter Bunny teaching and they don’t understand what the Bible says because “everybody knows” there has to be a ceremony.  There are laws that require a ceremony (although very few understand those laws are nothing but polite suggestions).  The point is “everybody knows” so why study it?  So, they don’t and they don’t and they believe a lie.  The Easter Bunny’s minions think that’s hilarious.

The Easter Bunny lied and the church has been teaching lies for well over a thousand years in this area.  We know this because in Matthew 19:6, Jesus said “they are no longer two, but one flesh.  What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”  That clearly indicates the “shall become one flesh” is an action by God, not the man, which means the only place for the sex is in the “shall cleave” part.   The Easter Bunny says no, that’s not true.  The “cleave” part is the commitment and the “become one flesh” is the sex that takes place after the ceremony and God takes care of making them one flesh.  However, in studying the text we know he’s lying.  It still amazes me people even believe in the Easter Bunny..

Words Mean Things

Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:3-9.  The Greek word used to translate the Hebrew word for “cleave” is Strong’s 2853 and in 1st Corinthians 6:16 the Apostle Paul used the same word (“kollaó”) for the act of “cleaving” to a whore.  In that passage Paul was saying not to “cleave” to a whore because that was how the man became “one flesh” with her and Paul then quoted from Genesis 2:24 saying “For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”  From that we know the Hebrew word dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24 to mean sex, but it also had the meaning of commitment.  Put together it meant that the man was demonstrating his commitment by having sex with her.  His intent is irrelevant, because to have sex with a woman is the act of marrying her that demonstrates his commitment to do so.

comments 51

Isn’t it neat how Scripture interprets Scripture?  The Apostle Paul not only told us that the Hebrew word “dabaq” used in Genesis 2:24 meant sex, but he also made it clear that the sex came before the becoming one flesh.  The sex only makes the couple “one body” while God makes them one flesh.  And yes, he used both phrases (“one body” and “one flesh”) in the same verse and he knew exactly what he was saying.

But, what about the ceremony?  Doesn’t there have to be a ceremony?  Don’t people who desire to marry have to stand up in front of witnesses and make a public commitment?  The answer is no.  We know this because of Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.   The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife.   Because he has violated her he may never divorce her as long as he lives.

There are two things here that must be pointed out.  First is the act itself is rape and there is no difference whether they know each other or whether they are complete strangers.  It doesn’t matter if the man is already married or not.  The point is she was raped (violated).  She did not consent or agree to the sex and that fact is evident because they were discovered while she was being raped.  The reason this is important is because Numbers 30:3-5 gives the father the right to annul any agreement his daughter makes when he hears of it (after the fact), which annuls any obligations arising out of that agreement.  If the evidence (they were discovered) indicates she did not agree, the she made no agreement her father could annul and thus they are married.  She “shall be” his wife.

This really bothers people a lot, because it is saying  a woman is married to her rapist by the act of being forced to have sex.  Quite literally, sex makes the virgin married whether she wants it or not.  This bothers people so much they spend a lot of time trying to explain that the woman was not raped, when the passage clearly says she was “violated” and that same word is used to describe what happened when Amnon raped his sister Tamar, when Shechem raped Dinah and when the Levite’s concubine was raped to death.  It also describes the rape and seduction of a virgin who is betrothed just 4 verses prior to that.  When used in a sexual sense, the word describes either rape, rape/adultery or rape/incest.   Not only does sex with a virgin mean you’ve married her, it means you’ve married her even if you rape her.

But, they can’t let it go and say, “Ok, she got raped, but they’re still not married!  That passage says she ‘must become’ or ‘shall become’ his wife.  That means they aren’t married yet because they haven’t had the ceremony!!”

Sigh.  No, the phrase in the text “must become” (other translations say “shall become”) is the same phrase used in Genesis 2:24 where it says “the two shall become one flesh.”  The same phrase used for the same act and it should be taken the same way.  The two shall become one flesh when they consummate the marriage and thus with no way for the father to annul the marriage, she shall be his wife when they have sex.  There is nothing left to do.  If you notice, when looking at the Hebrew you’ll see the plain English translation is “she shall be” is used instead of “she shall become” his wife.  There is no ceremony required or needed, there is nothing left for them to do, she is his wife.

And that upsets a lot of people. So much so that they try to disguise this.

We also see this in the only other passage on the initiation of marriage, Exodus 22:16-17.  That was a case in which the girl did make an agreement (she was seduced, which means she willing engaged in the act of marriage) and so her father had the option of annulling the marriage (again, after the fact).  In verse 16, the father does not annul the marriage and in verse 17 he does annul the marriage.  Notice:

16 If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. [The father does not annul the marriage]

17 If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.  [The father annuls the marriage]

In verse 16 the translators added the words “to be” that aren’t in the text to give the indication that they aren’t married yet (you can see this on the linked page, the added words are in brackets).   However, the text actually said he has to pay a dowry for her, his wife.  They are married, there is nothing left to do, she’s his wife and there obviously hasn’t been any ceremony.

In verse 17 the father exercises his authority under Numbers 30:5 to forbid his daughters agreement to have sex, which was her agreement to marry.  With this act, he has forbidden that man and the man is no longer eligible to marry his daughter.  This causes some confusion, but the text has it perfectly:  the father refuses “to give her” to that man in marriage.  He retroactively forbid the marriage so the sex did not make them married.   Verses 16 and 17 are both part of the same judgment, which dealt with the apparent conflict between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:5.  If the man can seduce the woman they are married (Genesis 2:24) and thus the father no longer has authority over his daughter.  In the absence of any agreement why should have have to pay the bride price?

As we’ve just seen in both Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, sex is what makes the two married, which is exactly what Genesis 2:24 said.  In 1st Corinthians 6:16 we discover that the Hebrew word “dabaq” that gets translated into English as “cleave” or “joined” in Genesis 2:24 actually means sex.  There is no ceremony and nobody has to preside over anything or solemnize anything, all that’s required is sex… and that’s the problem.  Yes, the problem is that it’s so easy to get married that people have been struggling with this for thousands of years to throw in all kinds of other requirements to make it harder to get married.  For hundreds of years the Easter Bunny made it practically impossible to get married without violating his rules.


Which Leads Us To The Epidemic Of Adultery

Genesis 2:24 only has a single tangible act necessary to produce marriage and that’s sex.  That means virtually all women are virgins when they marry because they are married when they lose their virginity.  What do you call it when a woman has sex with a man who isn’t her husband?  Adultery.  What do you call her when she is joined to (“marries”) a man who is not her husband?  An adulteress.

If the statistics from the CDC and other organizations are to be believed, that means that somewhere around 90% of all couples in church today are living in adultery because the woman was already married when she joined herself with the man she calls her husband.  Because she married the man she gave her virginity to.

No-one likes that.  At all.  And virtually ever single one of those women can tell you exactly who they married because they remember their wedding in great detail.  They can tell you where and when and under what circumstances it happened.  They remember just about everything about it except for one critical detail:  they don’t remember it as their wedding because they didn’t know they were marrying the guy.  They didn’t know it, but God does.


How The Easter Bunny Lies About Sex With The Truth

easter bunny sm

“If you have sex before the wedding ceremony, you are fornicating, having premarital sex.  That sex before the ceremony will not make you married and it’s a sin.”

There is one particular condition under which that is true, but premarital sex exists and will not make the couple married under that condition.  Remember, a broken clock is still right twice a day.  Having sex with a virgin will not make you married and is “only” premarital sex if the couple is engaged to be married and has voluntarily agreed they will not have sex until the wedding day.  The thing is, it’s voluntary, not required.  Numbers 30:2 says that if a man makes an agreement he must keep it.  If a father (who is in authority over his daughter) makes an agreement concerning her it is binding on her.

If a man negotiates a marital contract with the girl’s father that calls for a betrothal period followed by a celebration/ceremony in which the father pronounces an end to the betrothal period and releases them to be married, while it is completely voluntary… once the agreement is made… it is binding.  If that agreement is violated it’s a sin.

So, if the engaged couple has sex during the betrothal period, they are literally having premarital sex because they have not yet arrived at their wedding date.  Because the girl is not eligible to marry until the day set certain in the contract, having sex with her will not cause them to be married.  The act of sex itself is not a sin, but because the man is violating his word to wait until the end of the betrothal period.  However, if the woman is not a virgin because some other man got her virginity, it isn’t premarital sex, it’s adultery.

That is the only way “premarital sex” exists and in the absence of a wedding contract there is no such thing as premarital sex because no marriage date has been set- and in the absence of that (assuming the girl is a virgin) having sex will make them married.  So, when someone from the church says, generally, that sex before marriage is premarital sex and the sex will not make you married, they are literally telling the truth… but not the whole truth.  You must be careful because the Easter Bunny loves to tell lies using the truth, just not the whole truth.

Ironically, this is not just the only way “premarital sex” can happen, but under these conditions when the “premarital sex” is actually real, nobody cares.  After all, they’re about to get married…


BONUS:  The Most Idiotic “Biblical” Explanation Of Why
Sex Won’t Make You Married That You’ll Ever See.

Over at Keoni Gault’s blog, “Avraham” said:

AT thinks sex with a girl makes one married. This is not true. Otherwise how could many people in the Bible have concubines that were not wives. Start with Lemech. Then Abraham. Then the friend of Joshua, Calev Ben Yefuna. His wives and girl friends were at least two each. Chronicles ch 2 verse 46.  To be married one needs to acquire the wife with two witnesses.

Who told you they weren’t wives, Avraham?  Exodus 21:10 instructs us that concubines have conjugal rights.  How does a woman get conjugal rights without being a wife (have you checked the definition of “conjugal rights” recently)?  Being a concubine describes a status issue- that the wife is not free but a slave.  Wives are bound by marriage, concubines are wives who are owned as property but they still have rights.

על כל דבר ערוה every matter involving sexual relationships needs two witnesses. That is anything related to the עריות requires two witnesses. על פי שני עדים יקום דבר   “Any matter shall stand on two witnesses.” Thus acquiring a wife is not the same as acquiring property. One needs to acquire her in front of two witnesses for the sake of marriage. This is clear in the Bible. Otherwise there could never be a girl friend concubine. This is obvious to anyone who has spend any time learning the Bible seriously AT has simply read a few verses out of context and spun a web out of them.

[Seriously, I don’t know where these people come from but you cannot make this stuff up-  Toad]

Notice there is no citation for where his brilliance comes from.  However, he throws some Hebrew text in there in an attempt to look smart (but do click on the first two links to see what they mean- it’s way too good to pass up).    The Law does indeed require two or more witnesses to resolve a matter, but it isn’t what Avraham thinks.  However, let’s not take my word for this, see what Scripture actually says about the two witnesses thing by reading Deuteronomy 17:6 for yourself:

“On the evidence of two witnesses or three witnesses, he who is to die shall be put to death; he shall not be put to death on the evidence of one witness.”

What about Deuteronomy 19:15?

“A single witness shall not rise up against a man on account of any iniquity or any sin which he has committed; on the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.”

Perhaps in the world “Avraham” lives on marriage is defined as something to do with incest, which requires a death sentence; or perhaps something pertaining to lewdness that would be iniquity and sin.  Obviously, on Avraham’s world it requires two or more witnesses so the man can’t deny it at a later date.  But that isn’t this world.

Oh- and any of you minions of the Easter Bunny reading this, I suspect “Avraham” is from Uranus.   Everybody knows that’s where the Jesuits are from.

This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to The Lie That Caused The Adultery Epidemic

  1. Renee Harris says:

    So what you’re saying is Little Miss perfect Who attend my church and married her boyfriend when she was a sophomore had no right to go after the guy that I like? Or is it dad because he does not have knowledge of the marriage she can do whatever she want

    • Some would say ignorance is bliss, until it’s time to pay the price. A price must be paid both temporally and in eternity. However, no woman has any “right” to a man other than the commitment he is willing to give her, which according to God is permanent but not exclusive.

      If he father understood that she’d given her virginity to some man and understood that meant she was married to him, he would have the choice of annulling the marriage or allowing it to stand. Keep in mind that what she did was to rebel against his authority over her and sin against him. He has the right to allow the marriage to stand and having pissed in her own bed she has to lay in it.

  2. John says:

    Good piece. And thank you.

  3. SJB says:

    You are doing well in explication. Two minor points: the becoming one flesh is a reference to two parents producing one child—the two become one. This flesh-from-flesh mirrors the Eve creation story as well as to point to the mystery of the Incarnation. Of course this does not obviate what you write: a male coupling with a virgin is marriage; the foremost fruit of marriage is children rather than companionship or some sort of mushy-gushy “soulmate” rubbish.

    Secondly, the contemporary marriage ceremony is better debunked by pointing out: the origin of the sacrament was to bless the physical union that it would be fruitful and produce offspring as well as produce the goods required to bring the offspring to adulthood. The couple in the contemporary gig usually have been copulating with pregnancy eliminated via mechanical or chemical self-sterilization. The pose of asking God to make their union fruitful while at the same time severely pruning their bearing branches is absurd.

    You write well – keep at it.

    • SJB

      I appreciate your encouragement and I do try to explain it, but it’s along the lines of leading a horse to water…

      As far as the so-called “sacrament” of marriage (referring to the Easter Bunny definition of marriage), to me that was a case of doubling down on previous lies. The God-given standard of marriage is permanent but non-exclusive commitment on the part of the man and Martin Luther had that placed squarely before him by Philip of Hesse, who was not happy with his wife Christine. Luther’s advice was eventually that as far as he could tell from Scripture, divorce for Christians was a sin but there was no command in the Bible not to have more than one wife.

      It should be kept in mind that this was not about securing an heir, because when Philip married his second wife Margarethe he already had two sons out of the seven children by Christine of Saxony; and she gave him a third son a bit over 10 months after he married Margarethe, eventually gave him a total of 10 children, 9 of which lived to adulthood. While obviously she did not lack in receiving her marital rights, she freely assented to his marriage in 1540 to a second wife, Margarethe von der Saale, who was 17 years younger than she was and 18 years younger than Philip. Margarethe gave Philip 9 children, her last (Anna) living only a few days, but her marriage to Philip was morganic in nature and thus her children did not inherit his titles or claims to royalty.

      Philip was royalty, a major Protestant leader in Germany and he married Christine in 1523 and later his second (polygynous) wife Margarethe in 1540. The council of Trent began in 1545 and those dates alone tell a story of political intrigue and the struggle for power that revolved around the church’s desire for control of the institution of marriage. Philip lived his life surrounded by the intrigues of the church and their desire to destroy him for his “sin” of challenging their power.

      The threat the Catholic church faced from Philip and his actions at that point cannot be underestimated. Were it not so sad, it would be amusing that no serious study was done on Genesis 2:24 during the reformation because at that time there had been a thousand years of church teaching on the “sin” of bigamy and the evil of sex outside marriage. The lies the church taught were commonly thought to be truth and tradition is a very hard thing to fight. The Catholics used Philip’s marriage to Margarethe to great effect in their political fight against the reformation and with Luther’s correspondence with Philip published before the conclusion of the Council of Trent, the old guard doubled down and declared marriage to be a sacrament of the church consisting of one man and one woman, until death do they part.

      The standards set forth in Genesis 2:24, Genesis 3:16 and all the associated Scripture is the ancient church’s (both RCC and Orthodox) Achilles heel. An understanding of these passages points straight to their complete disregard for God’s authority and their cynical use of what they claimed was an authority God never gave them to seek control over those they had no authority over: the nobility. Their weapon in that fight was sex and marriage, for controlling one’s ability to produce heirs is to control the generational dynasties of power and the transfer of wealth. That the RCC is far worse than the Orthodox church is immaterial, their teachings about sex and marriage are both the fruit of the poisoned tree that was firmly planted by Augustine and Jerome.

      Nothing so exposes the ancient church claim’s to the power of “apostolic authority” and “unbroken tradition” as false than does the history of what they did when they threw out God’s design for marriage and replaced it with pagan beliefs, stoic philosophy and roman law; instituting an ungodly war on sex and a pagan worship of virginity. Genesis 2:24 and Genesis 3:16 give lie to their claims that the “traditions and teachings” of the church have any power at all. It is nothing but a lust for power, a rebellion against God dressed in a soutane.

      For that, I suppose my feeble efforts are a threat to the legitimacy of what the church claims. Yet, it remains to be seen whether I’m merely an iconoclast or adhere to a more ancient responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely; but God is not mocked, there must eventually be justice. And I am not alone.

      Filiorum Phinees, cohortes sacerdotium fratres in aeternem viventem

  4. infowarrior1 says:

    ”Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered. The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife. Because he has violated her he may never divorce her as long as he lives.”

    I think there is mistranslation there.

  5. infowarrior1

    I’m quite familiar with that argument and it’s completely wrong. If you notice, all the focus is on the “taphas” and “chazaq” idea that it couldn’t be rape because of the words used… yada, yada, yada.

    Notice that verse 29 said she was violated. He claims that it wasn’t rape because when Dinah was raped by Shechem the word used was “chazaq” and not “taphas” but he neglects to point out that in both cases Scripture says the women were violated. The same as with Amnon and Tamar, and the Levite’s concubine who was raped to death. Every time that word is used in the sexual sense it describes adultery/rape, incest/rape or just rape. Notice the common theme of rape?

    It’s not a mistranslation to call it rape.

    The driving force behind this is two things. First, the desire to “prove” that rape is such a huge ugly crime that it can’t possibly result in marriage. That supports the Easter Bunny position that marriage is by consent, which supports the idea that the woman must consent to the marriage. The Bible says the exact opposite.

    In Exodus 21:7-11 we have the father selling his daughter into slavery to be a concubine (wife).
    In Deuteronomy 21:10-14 we have the woman captured in battle being forced into marriage.
    In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 we have the woman spontaneously raped into marriage.

    None of these marriages are characterized by the consent of the bride in any way.

    The second is to confuse the issue that sex actually makes one married. This too supports the Easter Bunny position that marriage is by consent, not by consummation, in which the woman must consent to the marriage in a ceremony before a 3rd party (the church) with witnesses. This was a ploy used by the Church to break the power of the nobility by attacking the authority of the father over his daughter. And if you don’t think that the New Testament doesn’t support that, read 1st Corinthians 7 and Paul’s advice to the father of the virgin, which fully supports the authority of the father to refuse to allow his daughter to marry.

    Anyway, “Sam Shamoun” is completely in the Easter Bunny camp in terms of a marriage being initiated with a proper ceremony, rather than the sex that the Bible actually says initiates the marriage. And, like the Easter Bunny, he’s wrong.

  6. Joseph Bleaux says:

    I am assuming by the graphic above that you too believe that the hymen has a divine purpose, to wit: to prevent a woman from defrauding her husband and to shed the blood necessary to seal the covenant between husband and wife?

    • No, actually I don’t think of it that way. However, it’s part of the design of a woman and a study of covenants indicates that covenants (to which God is a party) are always initiated by man with the shedding of blood. Any covenant to which God is party is one in which He seals it. In the case of the marriage covenant He makes them one flesh. As Paul said, it is a great mystery as to how that works, but it exists.

  7. Freedman says:

    So, what about the scenario when an unbeliever takes the virginity of a female and then later refuses to live with her? Are they married in that instance?

    • 1st Corinthians 7:15
      They were married, but…

      Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.

      Essentially she’s free of him and they are no longer married.

  8. Pingback: Christian Dating Foreplay: A Requirement Today | Toad's Hall

  9. Pingback: Black Knighting Churchian Marriage | Toad's Hall

  10. Pingback: The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers. | Toad's Hall

  11. Pingback: The “Cardinal Rule” and Female Competition | Toad's Hall

  12. Pingback: The Commitment Of A Man To Marriage | Toad's Hall

  13. Pingback: Women, Commitment and Sex | Toad's Hall

  14. Pingback: Churchian Fail: 5 out of 21 | Toad's Hall

  15. Pingback: Ho, ho, ho. | Toad's Hall

  16. Samuel Culpepper says:


    I invited this gentleman to join the discussion here since we have been hashing over this on this blog over the last couple of days. I think there are more people, men in particular out there that intuitively know something is wrong with “marriage” as we know it today, but haven’t put the pieces together because of all the smoke and mirrors the church, state and feminists have thrown at them.

  17. Pingback: Voicing Disagreement… | Toad's Hall

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s