The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers.

Chess, not checkers.

The past few days have been amusing, as commenter whysoserious? has provided enormous entertainment.  While probably not apparent to the casual reader, the reason is simple.  He followed the script perfectly.

My position is the truth of what Scripture actually says.  The Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex.  We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek by the Apostles to record Christ quoting Genesis 2:24, using the Greek word “Kolloa” to translate the Hebrew word “dabaq”.  Then, the Apostle Paul used the context of Genesis 2:24 (quoting half the verse) in his prohibition that forbid Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.  In that prohibition, which was structured in the same way as Genesis 2:24, the word “kolloa” was used to mean sex.  A=B and B=C, thus A=C.  Simple.

The Dilemma Of The Status Quo

For the defenders of the status quo this is a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t argument because the “status quo” on sex and marriage is irreconcilable as it is now, due to the Catholic church’s decision to throw out what the Bible said about marriage and sex a long time ago.  As it is, the cucks get a choice:

There is NO prohibition on sex with prostitutes

or,

Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her. 

There is no middle ground, they can’t avoid both, because bringing 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 into harmony with Genesis 2:24 will result in one of them.  It’s unavoidable.  This is why I suggested in my last post that readers present the original argument of whysoserious? as the argument that the Bible didn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes. Let’s face it, that really is an absurd argument, but you’re playing chess.  Let them play checkers.

Let them make the conservative defense of it and properly give the correct exegesis.  When they win their game of checkers and demonstrate that sex with prostitutes is forbidden, you’ve won your game of chess.  Because the final argument by whysoserious? of throwing out Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage is completely preposterous.  It’s one thing to do something like that online, anonymously, but not where you live.  Not in front of the people who pay your salary.

One of my goals in this sort of argument is to keep things on the “common man” level and I made every effort to avoid using the jargon of theologians.  The reason is we are dealing with the truth and the Bible was written to be understood by the common man.  Certainly study and training helps, but there is no substitute for time spent in serious study.  The tools available today in the form of computerized databases allow the kind of study that was all but impossible only fifty years ago.  Combine those tools with time in diligent study and the truth comes out.  One of those truths is that Genesis 2:24 should read like this:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and he shall have sexual intercourse with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”

That result of that is the man who has sex with an eligible virgin marries her and every other man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery.  Since this truth is unacceptable to modern churchians, they must find a way to attack it in order to preserve the status quo.  There are only a few ways to do that.  Obviously, this argument devolves to the word “kolloa” and the fact it means sex as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  That calls into question the word “porne” which is the word for prostitute.  If “porne” doesn’t necessarily mean a woman who sells sexual access to her body for money, then “kolloa” doesn’t necessarily mean sex.  That was the first line of attack that our commenter whysoserious? used.

Round One

When determining the meaning of any given word in the Bible there are some rules, or hermeneutics used, which is to say an accepted way of doing so.  The Protestant Reformation was based on the hermeneutic of “Sola Scriptura” which means “Only Scripture.”   That tossed out the teachings and traditions of the church contained in the Easter Bunny’s book of opinions called the magisterium.   Conservatively, when we want to find out what a word means we look for how it’s used in other places in the Bible, in general, and specifically in context.

The first line of attack by whysoserious? was on this front.  He made the argument that because in the other places in which “kolloa” was used of human interaction, it carried the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness (the hallmarks of the marriage relationship), so that was the meaning that should be used in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  Further, because the Greek word “porne” was somewhat related to the Hebrew word “zanah” and the Hebrew word “zanah” was used occasionally to metaphorically describe an adulterous wife, the Greek word “porne” should mean an adulterous wife or a promiscuous woman.  The resulting argument was 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 wasn’t really forbidding Christian men from banging whores, it was a warning not to marry an adulterous or promiscuous woman.  It was a fine sounding argument if one is willing to overlook the sheer absurdity.   But, there was this little problem with the unintended consequence of stirring up that witches brew of absurdity.

When confronted with the fact that if his interpretation was correct, there was no longer any prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, it was time to shift gears.  Uh oh.  Back to the drawing board.  The reality hit that the meaning of the word “kolloa” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16 must be sex and the use of the word “porne” must be a prostitute.

Remember, I previously stated that given a choice it would be to go with the prohibition on using prostitutes.  This is because women control the money and of the two, they’ll vote for the prohibition on prostitutes every single time.  Guess which one whysoserious? went with?

Round Two

Now it was time for another attack.  Remember, there are only three elements to this.  It cannot be questioned that Christ quoted Genesis 2:24, and if the word “kolloa” means sex within the context of 1st Corinithians 6:16 it means the Hebrew word “dabaq” means sex in Genesis 2:24 and that means…   the eligible virgin is married when she has sex the first time.  No ceremony needed, nothing else.  The man and woman have penetrative intercourse, God seals the covenant by making them one flesh.  Every single time.  Because the text says so and because Jesus said so.

Commenter whysoserious? concedes the argument, that “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 does actually mean sex.  But he still can’t tolerate what that means.  It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has to come next.  The only thing left to do is attack Genesis 2:24.  Which is what our commenter whysoserious? has done.  Watch carefully.

“The reader of the Bible is assumed to know what marriage is, just like he’s assumed to know what a man is, or a king, or a nation. These words, though integral to understanding the Bible, are left to the reader’s cultural knowledge of the ancient Near East.”

WRONG!  For Christians, the reason we know the meaning of marriage, or at least the reason we should know the meaning of marriage, is because God told us what marriage is.  He did so in Genesis 2:24.  It is true we pick up on cultural cues, but it’s also true that our cultural cues in the United States and other nations derived from Great Britain are derived from the teachings of the church when it comes to things like marriage.  That is beyond dispute.  That such teaching and practices don’t actually match the Bible when it comes to marriage is not the fault of the Bible, but of the ancient church.  Readers of this blog should understand that.

“Genesis 2:24 is NOT a law or a definition; it is the conclusion to a story that explains why a man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Read it yourself: you’ll see this is the natural context and interpretation”

See the attack on Genesis 2:24?  This claim would come as a great surprise to Christ and to the Apostle Paul.  When asked about divorce, Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage.  When comparing the one-flesh bond of marriage to the one-body bond of being part of the body of Christ, Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31-32.  Both of whom cited Genesis 2:24 as authoritatively defining at the very least.

If one could believe this twaddle about Genesis 2:24 not being authoritative on marriage, it leaves us in the uncomfortable position of having the death-penalty offense of adultery in a situation in which marriage is not defined.  If one cannot define a marriage, one cannot know when the wife violates the marriage. Forget about what someone might think of near-eastern cultures, we’re talking about God’s chosen people.

However, from a strategic point of view this is exactly what the cucks want.  Genesis 2:24 is the law that grants the man the authority to initiate marriage.  Get rid of Genesis 2:24 as being authoritative and who has the authority to initiate marriage?  Who can require that the prospective couple obtain permission or a license?  Who can say what a marriage really is?  Obviously, if there is no definition of marriage, then homosexual marriage is allowed and there can be no crime of adultery.  In fact, without a definition of marriage and the authority to marry, there can be no marriage.  I’m not saying whysoserious? is one of the cucks, but he’s certainly playing their tune.

All people will be judged according to the Law, which defines what sin is (Romans 4:15, 5:13).  Just as only those who receive salvation in Christ will receive eternal life.  The Bible is very clear on that.  Since the Bible testifies of itself that the Law of the Lord is perfect, we would expect to see a standard of marriage that exists across all cultures, times and peoples.

As it just so happens, God provided that standard in Genesis 2:24 and He chose to make the act of sexual intercourse the initiation of the marriage. This fits perfectly with the fact that God chose to create women with a hymen.  Think of it as a tamper-proof seal.  A study of covenants indicates that covenants with God are initiated by the man with the shedding of blood.  Thus, when the man uses the act of marriage to begin the marriage, with the shedding of blood the covenant of marriage is initiated.   God responds by making the two one flesh.  For all people of all times in all cultures, nations and races.

Observe Deuteronomy 22:13-17

“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.”

What was the evidence?  A bloody garment, proving she was a virgin and he broke her hymen when he penetrated (married) her.  There’s more than meets the eye here, but the point is simple:  She was presented at the beginning of her betrothal as a virgin.  Legally she was married while betrothed.  Not a virgin at the end of the betrothal period?  That’s adultery.  And no bloodstained garment for evidence meant she got stoned to death for it at the door of her fathers house.

The standard of “sex with an eligible virgin consummates the marriage” as stated in Genesis 2:24 leaves room for any cultural issues, voluntary agreements and what have you, because it boils down to one question- did the man have sex with a virgin eligible to marry him?  If yes, they’re married.  If no, then not.  Reams could be written about the fact that across the cultures and geographic locations, sex remains the definitive act of marriage, but commenter whysoserious? wants to imagine that Genesis 2:24 is now just part of the story in Genesis describing what happened with Adam and Eve.

No.  Genesis 2:24 is the law of marriage.    It provides the authority to marry, describes how marriage takes place and from what is not provided we have the parameters that a man can take more than one wife but has no authority to divorce.  The divorce issue got modified a few times, but in order to understand the divorce issue it’s critical to understand what Christ was talking about when He said “but from the beginning it has not been this way.”  (Matthew 19:8)

As we’ve already seen, Christ obviously considered Genesis 2:24 authoritative enough to quote it as the standard of marriage, as well as the Apostle Paul.  But is there anything more?  Yes.  Consider Romans 7:2-3

“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.  So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress, even if she marries another man.

Consider 1st Corinthians 7:39, speaking of Christian wives.

“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, as long as he belongs to the Lord.”

By what law is she bound if Genesis 2:24 is not a law? One might argue that this passage is speaking of the law concerning adultery, but there can be no adultery without a married woman.  Further, the law concerning adultery prohibits violating, you guessed it, the marriage.  How is the woman bound?  By the law of marriage, the law concerning her husband:  Genesis 2:24.

Genesis 2:24 was the first law given to mankind, which implemented the Command to be fruitful and multiply, because God wants children born within marriage.  We know this because God said no illegitimate child shall enter the assembly of the Lord down to the tenth generation.  Marriage is the container designed by God in which to bring children into this world.  We all know how that happens, with the act of marriage.  Sex.

The Pooch Is Screwed

Most interestingly, this little exchange illustrates the lengths to which those with the training to know the truth will go to disregard the truth.  Our fearless commenter states:

“You’re closing your eyes to anything that could reveal an alternate interpretation.”

Let the reader be reminded of the facts.  My argument has not changed, nor has my approach to the interpretation of Scripture.  His statement here is pure projection.  He has jumped from the amusingly absurd to the preposterous.  On the one hand he states he prefers “the tried and true” but that only works as long as “dabaq” means “commitment.”  As soon as it means “sex” he is willing to toss Genesis 2:24 in the trash if it’s necessary to prevent this truth from being recognized.

This is why we have such a dilemma.  It is unquestioned that Genesis 2:24 is the origin and authoritative definition of marriage in the Bible.  It is unquestioned that men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  But, under the definitions now in place, something has to change because they are not in agreement.  Either you get sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her or you no longer have a prohibition on banging whores.  Which is why the argument presented by whysoserious? is so preposterous.  He wants to keep the prohibition on banging whores and get rid of the law of marriage.

His two linguistic arguments centered around adding the Septuagint to broaden the specific meaning of the critical text, as well as to make a literal use of metaphor to add requirements where there are none. I, of course, reject this.  Metapor is metaphor and it isn’t to be taken literally, but read metaphorically or allegorically to grasp the underlying truth.  Otherwise we have naked brides, cloaks and oaths required for marriage and women only committing adultery when they find men possessed of genitalia the size of donkeys.  I grew up on a farm and having seen the real thing I can factually state that not even porn stars make it into the donkey league.

When the man has sex with an eligible virgin they are married.  That’s what this is about.  That cannot be allowed to be known because the adultery epidemic must continue.  As soon as the people discover how badly they have been lied to, everything changes and the money spigot for those who knew or should have known will be turned off.

What has not been stated is that throughout this argument I have used the basic, conservative rules of Scriptural interpretation approved by such bastions of conservatism as the Southern Baptist Convention and that Evangelical pastor pupation station, the Dallas Theological Seminary.  In addition I’ve used the “common man” argument style, eschewing jargon, with Scripture as my sole authority.  I’m told it’s the sort of thing only a complete asshole would do.

Commenter whysoserious? knows that he can’t win this argument on the merits.  He tried and he failed.  But, he thinks I’m wrong.  He protests:

“You reject a corpus of ancient Greek text which gives insight into the definitions and usages of words important to this discussion, you “don’t accept” illuminations of relevant cultural practices that cast doubt on your ideology; all to save your precious syllogisms of contrived equivalences, concocted from methodical exclusions of linguistic and cultural context. I expected more from you, sir: you broke free from the shackles of popular doctrine, only to lock yourself in a new prison… or something like that. I never feel like I stick the landing on my melodramatic sentences.”

To put it another way, I make a very narrow argument using conservative methodology that points to a serious dichotomy between some definitions which has a huge impact on doctrine.  Just like the homosexual men arguing that God loves everyone and their homosexuality isn’t actually a sin, Sola Scriptura isn’t a winning strategy for whysoserious?.  He rejects Sola Scriptura in this case because it does not yield the result he desires. For example:

“Plus, the word [used by the Septuagint] for temple prostitute in Deut. 23:18 is, you guessed it! porne. This preserves the Law and the consistent nature of God. Rather than sticking out like a sore thumb, this passage can fit seamlessly into the Biblical narrative.”

No.  The word “qadesh” (temple prostitute) is used in the prohibition against temple prostitutes in verse 17.  The word used in verse 18 is “zanah” so there is no connection with temple prostitution at all.  Verse 18 forbids the wages of a prostitute from being used for any votive offering in the temple.  However, the word “zanah” carries with it added meaning that the word “porne” does not (adultery), which allows the meaning of the word “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 15-16 to be shifted to something more to his liking.

What is truly hilarious is that he claims I’m closing my eyes to anything that would yield an alternative explanation, somehow forgetting that he is supposed to be defending the status quo.  When he discovered that the defense of the status quo means either sex with a virgin results in marriage or sex with prostitutes is a permitted and moral activity, he became the one with the alternative explanations.

The thing about the Septuagint and Deuteronomy 23:18 is whysoserious? has demonstrated he only wants to use that connection through the Septuagint in order to make “porne” about temple prostitution, even though he knows better.  This is what we call eisegesis, which is to read into the text what we want to see.  In this case the text written by Apostolic authority won’t support what he wants so he turns to the Septuagint to broaden the definitions that don’t exist in the New Testament in order to re-define things to his liking.

He also wants to use an obvious metaphor involving God being married to an entire nation to create further requirements for a man to be married to a woman.  However, this is just sour grapes because it’s too late.  With the admission that “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 means prostitute, the word “kolloa” can only mean sex, which means “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex.  Which means that Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 nail down the point that there is nothing else required and his metaphor is simply a metaphor.

The pooch, as they say, has now been thoroughly screwed.

Thus, he wants to do away with the law of marriage entirely.  He claims it’s not a law, it’s not a definition, it’s just part of the story of creation.  Why?  Anything to get away from the truth that when a man has sex with an eligible virgin he’s married to her.  The absurdity here is hilarious.  The claim that the description of God’s metaphorical marriage to Judah and Israel in Ezekiel creates a requirement for marriage because, as he stated, marriage requires something more than sex.  But, the text doesn’t support that any more than it supports naked brides and cloaks.  In the same way that adultery doesn’t require men with genitalia the size of donkeys.

The night ends and the pooch is now hiding behind the couch, howling.

Awareness dawns and suddenly Genesis 2:24 is nothing but a story.

The irony is the role reversal.  Normally, when anyone presents a radical departure from what our commenter calls the “tried and true” of the Bible they do exactly what whysoserious? is doing.  Those defending the status quo stick to the conservative hermeneutics, which is what I’ve done.

In this case what the Bible says is clear.  What is also clear is the Catholic church chose to throw out what the Bible said about sex and marriage, replacing it with a mixture of pagan practices, stoic philosophy and Roman law.  The historical record is rather precise as to the development of these doctrines, as well as the political reasons why they were put in place.

There is one point I didn’t address, and that was the comment about my hypothetical honor.  I think I saw her once, but from a distance.  I can’t be sure.  But, honor is as honor does.  I have certainly enjoyed this exchange.

 

NB.  The pooch was metaphorically screwed by metaphorical donkeys.  No dogs were actually violated, even the pooch was a metaphorical construct.  The howling was real.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers.

  1. Don Quixote says:

    Observe Deuteronomy 22:13-21 the entire passage


    13 “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.

    20 “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

    This passage clearly shows that a girl who commits pre-marital sex when under her father’s authority is sinning. Toad repeatedly claims that the catholic church made up the sin of pre-marital sex but here it is in the Torah, written over 1500 years before the catholic church existed. Both the text, and especially the context shows that pre-marital sex is a sin, at least for the girl living in her fathers house.
    By the way, there is no point trying to say that her first time in the sack wasn’t a sin because she was under her father’s authority, her father would have already instructed her to keep herself for her future husband. That alone makes it a sin. The command honour your father and mother comes to mind.

    Toad, for the last few months I have been thinking about Marriage-by-consummation and as a doctrine it reconciles better with my understanding of the exception clause than any other definition of marriage I can find. it works extremely well, check it out:

    And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for the loss of her virginity and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”
    Think about why Joseph wanted to divorce Mary? He thought she was guilty of pre-marital sex. Please consider you should not be telling people that pre-marital sex isn’t a sin.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Thank you Don Quixote. Also there is the story of Dinah. Pre-marital sex didn’t make her married. That is why Shechem sent his father to “get her for me as a wife”. And was it a sin? Dinah’s brothers slaughtered all the men in the city because Shechem had “treated their sister like a whore”. This also puts an end to this “zanah only refers to cultic prostitution” stuff.

      Genesis 34

      1 And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see
      the daughters of the land.
      2 And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw
      her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.
      3 And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the
      damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.
      4 And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to
      wife.
      5 And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were
      with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.
      6 And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.
      7 And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men
      were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel
      in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done.
      8 And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth
      for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.
      9 And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take
      our daughters unto you.
      10 And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and
      trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.
      11 And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace
      in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.
      12 Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall
      say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.
      13 And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully,
      and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:
      14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to
      one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
      15 But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every
      male of you be circumcised;
      16 Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters
      to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.
      17 But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take
      our daughter, and we will be gone.
      18 And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor’s son.
      19 And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in
      Jacob’s daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.
      20 And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and
      communed with the men of their city, saying,
      21 These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and
      trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take
      their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.
      22 Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one
      people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.
      23 Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be
      ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.
      24 And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the
      gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate
      of his city.
      25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the
      sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and
      came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
      26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
      took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.
      27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they
      had defiled their sister.
      28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was
      in the city, and that which was in the field,
      29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they
      captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.
      30 And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink
      among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and
      I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and
      slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.
      31 And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

    • whysoserious? says:

      Also, if I might add, the sexual relations between the man and non-virgin are not considered adulterous, or else they would both be executed. (At least, the man would also be considered guilty of something, under the ‘adultery epidemic’ theory. The unbloodied sheet ought to be sufficient witness to their alleged wrongdoing.)

      FWIW, regarding premarital sex as sin: personally, I’m hesitant to call an act sinful in essence unless it is specifically condemned in its own commandment/law. If a woman falsely represents herself to her father and others as a virgin, I would consider that rebellious, perjurous or dishonorable behavior – a sufficient cause for execution. Also, I always heard Joseph wished to put Mary away because she (apparently to him) cheated while she was betrothed. This doesn’t imply all premarital sex is sin, however.

  2. Renee Harris says:

    Can I ask a dumb question: did Jesus have kids? All this discussion leads to question if Christ had physical kids as he would acted out the act of marriage as young as 13.
    It is Not sinful for a man for Sex with any non married non related woman and men need sex so Jesus has sex and thus was married to probably two or three woman. There no Evidence in the scripture however it could me taken out to support to Prevision of the Catholic “church”

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The Bible is silent about how many wives and children Jesus had. Once you get past the shock factor of even framing such a question, it becomes intriguing. We just don’t have enough evidence to speak to it in any way. Grail Theology has gone back underground due to political persecution. If you want to follow the Joseph Smith crowd, then all this talk about the Bible really isn’t relevant; their continuing revelation can change things at the drop of a hat.

  3. Don Quixote says:

    whysoserious? says:
    August 31, 2016 at 12:01 pm

    Also, if I might add, the sexual relations between the man and non-virgin are not considered adulterous, or else they would both be executed. (At least, the man would also be considered guilty of something, under the ‘adultery epidemic’ theory. The unbloodied sheet ought to be sufficient witness to their alleged wrongdoing.)

    FWIW, regarding premarital sex as sin: personally, I’m hesitant to call an act sinful in essence unless it is specifically condemned in its own commandment/law. If a woman falsely represents herself to her father and others as a virgin, I would consider that rebellious, perjurous or dishonorable behavior – a sufficient cause for execution. Also, I always heard Joseph wished to put Mary away because she (apparently to him) cheated while she was betrothed. This doesn’t imply all premarital sex is sin, however.

    You make a good point, and I was being specific as to the gender regarding this matter. The context of Deut.22:13-21 shows clearly that her sin was only discovered on her wedding night. So it amounts to pre-marital sex call it what you will.
    And I agree with your view on Joseph and Mary, Joe thought he was being cucked, so he was getting out, until the Lord intervened and explained what had happened. If Joseph had any future doubts about the child he was raising, I’m sure there would have been a lot of incidents not recorded in the gospels about Jesus’ childhood that dispelled any doubts.
    When Jesus performed His first miracle at the wedding in Cana, Mary already knew just to follow His instructions. She and Joe would have seen many miracles during his youth.

  4. Don Quixote says:

    Renee Harris says:

    August 31, 2016 at 9:05 am
    Can I ask a dumb question: did Jesus have kids? All this discussion leads to question if Christ had physical kids as he would acted out the act of marriage as young as 13.
    It is Not sinful for a man for Sex with any non married non related woman and men need sex so Jesus has sex and thus was married to probably two or three woman. There no Evidence in the scripture however it could me taken out to support to Prevision of the Catholic “church”

    Your question reminds me of an old saying:
    God has many children, but NO grandchildren.
    I don’t believe that Jesus has any children, and I’m not aware of any church that teaches He did.

    Getting back to the ‘old saying’, for those unfamiliar with church culture. It is used to tell children that they must be ‘born again’. They can only rely on the salvation of their parents unto a point where they must believe in their heart and confess with their mouths that Jesus is Lord. Essentially exercise their faith.

    BTW – Where is Toad?

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Don Quixote, the Mormon Church and the Grail Church teach a married Jesus presently, and there have been many through the ages, including Saint Ireneus, who taught a married Jesus.

    • Renee Harris says:

      Toad ms agreement opening up the probability of the Lord a wife ( for He never have any kind is sinful sex) and I find hard to believe , giving what Toad write , that Christ willingly Abstained from sex if a not doing would have no negative repercussions on his ministry.
      So It is sin to have another ma’s wife, He did not do that… But he could slept with a virgin or free to marry non virgin who giving Just who w he was, would agree to marry him. Remember men can leave their wife’s if his role in ministry called him away but she still belongs to him

  5. marlon says:

    “This passage clearly shows that a girl who commits pre-marital sex when under her father’s authority is sinning.”

    No. She has committed adultery and tried to hide it.
    Sex with one man, hiding it, presenting herself as pure in marriage to another.
    Adultery.

    If in doubt, read the story of Judah and Tamar.
    ______________________________________________________________________________

    “Also there is the story of Dinah. Pre-marital sex didn’t make her married”

    25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the
    sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and
    came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
    26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
    took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.

    The girl is living with Shechem – not with her father.
    His house, his rules, his woman.
    The “marriage” here is a formality to show respect to Jacob, a powerful chieftain.

    I assume Jacob wasn’t happy with what happened but we hear no objections from him.
    He does not say “Bring her home! That was pre-marital sex. It doesn’t count!”
    Nor do his sons say that.
    They clearly believe that they are married; they just don’t like how it was done.
    To make matters right, they don’t go to court, claim pre-marital sex doesn’t count etc.
    They make Dinah a widow and kill everyone who could take revenge.

  6. Don Quixote says:

    marlon says:
    September 1, 2016 at 6:20 am

    “This passage clearly shows that a girl who commits pre-marital sex when under her father’s authority is sinning.”

    No. She has committed adultery and tried to hide it.

    Are you saying that adultery isn’t a sin?
    She sinned when she was under her fathers authority. Call it what you will, it is a sin. Agreed?
    Read the passage, and you will note that both the context and text [zanah] confirm her actions as sinful.

    Sex with one man, hiding it, presenting herself as pure in marriage to another.
    Adultery.

    Again, call it what you will it when she was under her father’s authority, she had no right to do what she did. It was a sin.

    If in doubt, read the story of Judah and Tamar.

    The story and Judah and Tamar, is an attempt to flip the genders. Epic fail.
    Tamar wasn’t under her father’s authority, and we’re not discussing the actions of the man. Only the girl. If you have something to add regarding Judah and Tamar then present it.

    _____________________________________________________________________________

    “Also there is the story of Dinah. Pre-marital sex didn’t make her married”

    The girl is living with Shechem – not with her father.
    His house, his rules, his woman.

    I think you are wrong. She was not living with Shechem.
    The chapter begins with Dinah “went out to see the daughters of the land”.
    She got raped by Shechem. And this triggered a feud between the tribes of Jacob and Hamor.
    Verse 5 “And Jacob heard that he [Shechem] had defiled his daughter”. Strongly shows that Dinah was under her father’s house at the time of the rape. No need to wheel out Deut.22:28 I am familiar with how this works. Death put a end to any union that was forming.

  7. marlon says:

    I am not saying adultery is not a sin.
    Of course adultery is sin.
    I am saying the girl is stoned for adultery.

    I was not trying to be clever when I said read the story of Judah and Tamar.
    Tamar (deceitfully) has sex with Judah while promised to his son – an illustration of the adultery your passage spoke about.
    Both passages involve a woman’s adultery being exposed, (and the punishment for that).

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    I quoted from the passage you gave about Dinah to show you that after the encounter Dinah went to live with Schechem.

    “26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
    took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.”

    They could not take Dinah out of Shechem’s house if she was not living there.

    Again the contention is that Dinah has been treated, not as the daughter of a powerful chieftain, but as a common whore. No one says, “Well there is no marriage, it’s just pre-marital sex because …reasons”.

  8. Don Quixote says:

    marlon says:
    September 4, 2016 at 6:13 pm

    I am not saying adultery is not a sin.
    Of course adultery is sin.
    I am saying the girl is stoned for adultery.

    Call it what you like, it doesn’t matter.
    The ‘sin’ occurred while under her father’s authority. She had no right to commit such an act.
    The ‘sin’ was discovered on her wedding night. She was killed for her sin. This is normally called fornication, as in the ‘exception clause’ Matt.5:32 & 19:9.

    I was not trying to be clever when I said read the story of Judah and Tamar.
    Tamar (deceitfully) has sex with Judah while promised to his son – an illustration of the adultery your passage spoke about.
    Both passages involve a woman’s adultery being exposed, (and the punishment for that).

    As I understand that story, Tamar was a widow, she was not under her father’s authority. Judah had reneged on his promise [effectively deceiving her] and she deceived him into sex, hardly a capitol crime. Judah called for her punishment because he was the guilty one. These two cases are different because the sin began with Judah not Tamar.

    In the previous example we don’t know how the girl lost [gave away] her virginity, but the deception was all hers.

    _______________________________________________________________________________

    I quoted from the passage you gave about Dinah to show you that after the encounter Dinah went to live with Schechem.

    But I think you misunderstood it. Dinah went to visit the daughters of the land and was raped by Schechem. She never “went to live with Schechem”. As far as Jacob and sons were concerned she was raped and stolen from them.

    “26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
    took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out.”

    They could not take Dinah out of Shechem’s house if she was not living there.

    Again the contention is that Dinah has been treated, not as the daughter of a powerful chieftain, but as a common whore. No one says, “Well there is no marriage, it’s just pre-marital sex because …reasons”.

    The problem with your reasoning is that you ignore the father’s authority over his daughter. He has the position to say who she marries, not some random dude with an erection. He also has the power of veto if she makes a foolish decision. In the case of Shechem and Dinah death terminated the relationship.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      I feel like some of the men posting here don’t have sisters and daughters. Don Quixote speaks rightly: “you ignore the father’s authority over his daughter. He has the position to say who she marries, not some random dude with an erection.”

  9. marlon says:

    “The problem with your reasoning is that you ignore the father’s authority over his daughter. He has the position to say who she marries, not some random dude with an erection. He also has the power of veto if she makes a foolish decision.”

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver,
    And she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    This scripture covers what happened to Dinah.
    It is interesting to note that neither Jacob nor his sons reason as you do.
    Dinah moves in with Shechem and lives with him.
    Jacob is furious, his sons are furious, but no one says “you aren’t really married; it’s just pre-marital sex”.
    They don’t use your argument.
    Simeon and Levi murder her husband and all of his allies to get Dinah out of the marriage.

  10. Don Quixote says:

    marlon says:
    September 5, 2016 at 10:02 am

    Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (KJV)
    28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver,
    And she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

    This scripture covers what happened to Dinah.
    It is interesting to note that neither Jacob nor his sons reason as you do.
    Dinah moves in with Shechem and lives with him.
    Jacob is furious, his sons are furious, but no one says “you aren’t really married; it’s just pre-marital sex”.
    They don’t use your argument.
    Simeon and Levi murder her husband and all of his allies to get Dinah out of the marriage.

    There’s a few problems with this:
    1) I never said they aren’t really married. I understand marriage by rape. You’re beating up a straw man.
    2) Marriage by rape works then as it did now. Jacob’s sons settled the score. More recently:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Castro_kidnappings
    Ariel Castro and Shechem are two of a kind, didn’t work then, won’t work now. Try it and see what happens.
    3) The Torah you quote wasn’t even written when these events occurred. The bible shows 2 models of marriage. Marriage by consummation, and marriage by covenant. These don’t conflict but you must consider both to form a balanced view. If you ignore the all important step and getting the ok with her father, you must then face the consequences. Fathers are cool too despite all the crap from the feminised media.

    @ Toad: Where are you? Get here now!

  11. whysoserious? says:

    @Don Quixote, @marion

    I haven’t followed your exchange too closely, but I’d thought I’d join in with a few casual observations.

    1. In Gen 34, Shechem and Hamor didn’t consider Dinah to be Shechem’s wife. If they thought she was already married to Shechem after he humbled her, they, presumably, wouldn’t be asking for her hand in marriage. Why ask for what you already have?

    2. Jacob’s sons went on their rampage because (v. 31), “he treated her like a harlot.” Last time I checked, getting married isn’t a characteristic of standard harlotry. Getting used sexually then being cast aside is, though. Alongside 1., it seems unlikely that anyone in this scenario thought a marriage took place.

    3. In Deuteronomy 22, pay close attention to the consequences for rape. First, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to her father and marry the woman (compare Ex. 22:16). Second, because he humbled her, he cannot put her away for all her days. Notice that he doesn’t marry her because he humbled her, or pay because he humbled her (in this passage).

    Semi OT: Does anyone know what the penalty is if the man refuses to marry the woman? Mandatory marriage with similar phrasing is used in Deut. 25 with levirate marriage, and the consequence for refusal is just a stinging insult. I suppose not paying the money could be considered theft, but I can’t think of anything that would force the man into (the contract/covenant of) marriage. Insights?

  12. Don Quixote says:

    whysoserious? says:
    September 6, 2016 at 10:27 am
    @Don Quixote, @marion

    I haven’t followed your exchange too closely, but I’d thought I’d join in with a few casual observations.

    1. In Gen 34, Shechem and Hamor didn’t consider Dinah to be Shechem’s wife. If they thought she was already married to Shechem after he humbled her, they, presumably, wouldn’t be asking for her hand in marriage. Why ask for what you already have?

    1) Shechem raped [de-flowered?] Dinah, effectively destroying her ability to be a suitable wife. His dealings were done without the blessing of Jacob. Perhaps Shechem didn’t know about Dinah’s crazy brothers? Shechem knew he owed Jacob big time and hastily sought to reconcile.
    1a) The same events are viewed from 3 different perspectives:
    House of Jacob: Shechem stole our sister from us, we deliver her from his evil clutches.
    House of Shechem son of Hamor: Opps, I better pay for what I have taken before TSHTF.
    Dinah: My virginity is gone to this dummy. What’s a girl to do?

    2. Jacob’s sons went on their rampage because (v. 31), “he treated her like a harlot.” Last time I checked, getting married isn’t a characteristic of standard harlotry. Getting used sexually then being cast aside is, though. Alongside 1., it seems unlikely that anyone in this scenario thought a marriage took place.

    I would say that Jacob’s sons were very similar in character to Shechem and co. They would not act in the best interest of Dinah, they would seek revenge because they were young and honorary. Poor Dinah paid the price for their hasty actions. Jacob would have acted in Dinah’s best interest, but most likely didn’t get the chance.

    3. In Deuteronomy 22, pay close attention to the consequences for rape. First, the man must pay fifty shekels of silver to her father and marry the woman (compare Ex. 22:16). Second, because he humbled her, he cannot put her away for all her days. Notice that he doesn’t marry her because he humbled her, or pay because he humbled her (in this passage).

    The circumstances in Deut.22:28 -29 support Toad’s contention that marriage is by consummation, but again we see the father’s interests involved. In this case the father could not annul his daughters marriage because she didn’t consent to the actions of her assailant. Brutal stuff.
    But again this is like an ole-timey Ariel Castro deal. See how that worked out. It was the practice of the Israeli army to keep the virgins alive after a successful fight. These could be assimilated into the community by marriage.

    I had hoped to discuss this further with AT but it is obvious he is not available. We had previously discussed this on Dalrock’s blog about 6 months ago. Since that time I have been doing some home work to get my head around: Marriage by consummation V Marriage by covenant. I haven’t post my thoughts yet because I wanted to use Toad as a sounding board. My page is here:
    http://www.oncemarried.net

    Semi OT: Does anyone know what the penalty is if the man refuses to marry the woman?

    The guy was at the mercy of her family, what would you do?

    Mandatory marriage with similar phrasing is used in Deut. 25 with levirate marriage, and the consequence for refusal is just a stinging insult. I suppose not paying the money could be considered theft, but I can’t think of anything that would force the man into (the contract/covenant of) marriage. Insights?

    The details of levirate marriage are not as brutal as the previous example. Everybody knows where they stand, and if there are any objections then they can be sorted out without bloodshed.

  13. whysoserious? says:

    @Don Quixote,

    1) Yes, the offer of marriage likely was for reconciliation. I, at least, think that the phrasing of the request would have been different if Dinah and Shechem were considered married by consummation. You don’t marry someone you already married; you might pay the requisite fees, or offer the appropriate truces – but what’s done is done. If it were all about payment, I’d expect different phrasing/results (like giving gifts or something for recompense, rather than asking her father’s permission for something that allegedly already happened).

    2) The sons were acting to avenge their sister’s dishonor, to be sure. I can’t see anything here that suggests they were fighting for another reason (i.e. to widow their married-by-rape sister). I mean, you could read that in if you believed marriage-by-consummation, but it’s by no means implied.

    3/OT) Again, I think it’s interesting to note the lack of consequences if this isn’t obeyed. Any enforced law has a corresponding punishment. Think restitution for damaged/stolen property, eye for an eye, and that stuff. But these marriage laws don’t provide punishments. So what if the woman’s father decided not to hand her over, or the man refuse to take her? The only item legally established is the payment for her virginity, and, refusal to pay could be considered theft – a crime with a given, corresponding punishment. This is probably the best line of attack for the pro-consummation people, but other issues can be raised with regard to civil implementations vs essential nature of marriage.

    I visited your website the other day, and it looks informative. I haven’t given much thought to the permanence of marriage, though in general I’m leaning in your direction.

  14. Mycroft Jones says:

    whysoserious, glad to see you taking this matter a bit further. Do a word study on marriage. When I did, I was very surprised. Biblical marriage is actually between two men, or two households. The husband, and the father. Go to Strong’s Concordance, check it out for yourself.

    When Adam became one with Eve, consummation may have completed the marriage. But first, God brought Eve to Adam. The Father handed the woman over to the new husband. There was a transfer of ownership. THEN consummation.

    Opening a virgin, causing her to bleed with her first sex, is a type of “bris” or covenant. Between the two parties: the husband and the father.

  15. Don Quixote says:

    Mycroft Jones says:
    September 7, 2016 at 10:50 am

    whysoserious, glad to see you taking this matter a bit further. Do a word study on marriage. When I did, I was very surprised. Biblical marriage is actually between two men, or two households. The husband, and the father. Go to Strong’s Concordance, check it out for yourself.

    When Adam became one with Eve, consummation may have completed the marriage. But first, God brought Eve to Adam. The Father handed the woman over to the new husband. There was a transfer of ownership. THEN consummation.

    Opening a virgin, causing her to bleed with her first sex, is a type of “bris” or covenant. Between the two parties: the husband and the father.

    I agree.
    But where I strongly disagree with AT is his belief about pre-marital-sex isn’t a sin. This is clearly demonstrated in the passage Deut.22:13-21. Pre-marital sex is a sin according to that passage.
    I am also convinced that this is what Jesus meant when He gave the ‘exception clause’ in Matts gospel. Also it is very similar circumstances to Joe and Mary. 3 witnesses.

    Not many people what to accept that because it means nearly all remarriage equates to adultery. But it’s not as bad as AT would like to call it an “Adultery epidemic”, using AT’s definition any deflowered woman is an adulteress unless her first partner died. I think this is wrong. It would mean the girls actions usurp her fathers authority. You never see this in scripture.
    The father has the authority to deal with his daughter as he see fit, including vetoing a sexual union prior to marriage [aka fornication].

    This raises another point: A union annulled by a father is different from a marriage terminated by a certificate of divorce. According to Moses’ law a complete marriage [i.e. covenant & consummation] can be terminated only by a certificate of divorce, but the former [roll in the hay with the guy next door] needs only the word of the father to stop any further contact. Married without father’s consent, separated by fathers word.

    I know this creates some other questions but I don’t have all the answers, that is why I’m here to talk to other’s with a different opinion.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The father doesn’t just have the right to veto pre-marital sex; it is considered whoredom, a death penalty offense for the girl if she doesn’t reveal it, and a legal tort for which the father can collect damages from the man.

      Exodus 22:16,17
      16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he
      shall surely endow her to be his wife.
      17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money
      according to the dowry of virgins.

      • Cite the specific chapter and verse that provides a death penalty for the sexual sin you claim is “premarital sex.”

        It has been explained to you repeatedly by me and other commenters that the ONLY prohibition on prostitution was specific to cult prostitutes.

        You will find the only death penalty sexual sins fell into the categories of incest, adultery and idolatry. Show me where a man is prohibited from sleeping with a virgin. You can’t. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 says that if there is no law, there is no transgression and no sin imputed.

        The only way you get a requirement for a marriage ceremony or a betrothal period is by agreement, the making of a vow. Otherwise, per Genesis 2:24, sex makes you married.

        You are wearing my patience very thin your George Gordon style BS answers.

  16. Don Quixote says:

    whysoserious? says:
    September 7, 2016 at 5:17 am

    @Don Quixote,

    1) Yes, the offer of marriage likely was for reconciliation. I, at least, think that the phrasing of the request would have been different if Dinah and Shechem were considered married by consummation. You don’t marry someone you already married; you might pay the requisite fees, or offer the appropriate truces – but what’s done is done. If it were all about payment, I’d expect different phrasing/results (like giving gifts or something for recompense, rather than asking her father’s permission for something that allegedly already happened).

    At the time of these events there was no Torah, we can be clever looking back with a lot more information than they had, in a case like this I would always side with the father’s [Jacob’s] opinion. Later Jacob castigated Simeon and Levi for their actions, its obvious the only winners were Jacob’s sons who took everything from the house of Hamor, including “their little ones”.

    2) The sons were acting to avenge their sister’s dishonor, to be sure. I can’t see anything here that suggests they were fighting for another reason (i.e. to widow their married-by-rape sister). I mean, you could read that in if you believed marriage-by-consummation, but it’s by no means implied.

    I tend to agree. We don’t know all the circumstances, perhaps Shechem was running good game? If you believe in reaping and sowing, then Jacob’s sons deceived Shechem into circumscision, perhaps Shechem deceived Dinah?

    3/OT) Again, I think it’s interesting to note the lack of consequences if this isn’t obeyed. Any enforced law has a corresponding punishment. Think restitution for damaged/stolen property, eye for an eye, and that stuff. But these marriage laws don’t provide punishments. So what if the woman’s father decided not to hand her over, or the man refuse to take her? The only item legally established is the payment for her virginity, and, refusal to pay could be considered theft – a crime with a given, corresponding punishment. This is probably the best line of attack for the pro-consummation people, but other issues can be raised with regard to civil implementations vs essential nature of marriage.

    Again I agree. There were no cops, there was no law or temple, it was might =s right. A poor example to build doctrine on.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      The story of Dinah, and the story of Judah and Tamar, are expressly given to use to build doctrine on. The “history” part of the Torah is just as important as the explicitly stated laws. The history forms the “case law” for interpreting the Torah.

      Fornication is not the act of marriage; fornication is not adultery. A daughters lust doesn’t trump a fathers rights.

    • whysoserious? says:

      @Mycroft

      What are you saying in the first paragraph? History provides context, not necessarily case law. Just because a few people sacked an entire town of revenge in Genesis doesn’t mean that’s how God wants us to behave. Especially when such an act leads to those involved being cursed – this, combined with the punishments in the Law, suggests this certainly isn’t a positive example for doctrine.

      Re: Marriage and Fathers
      Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I definitely agree that a daughter’s lust doesn’t trump her father’s rights, and think the transfer of ownership (typically from father to husband) is a necessary component of marriage. One thing I do wonder about, however, is if the nature of familial relationships nowadays affects the father’s rights. Say, for instance, a father didn’t consider his daughter his “property” in the old way of seeing things, and didn’t see marriage as an exchange of ownership. Does natural property exist? What if the owner thinks it doesn’t? Can the owner contractually transfer property that he doesn’t believe he owns? Then is the daughter her own owner? How does legal age of majority fit in? Similar queries could be made about marriages viewed as fluid “partnerships.” After all, the Bible doesn’t define human property, marriage, or parental jurisdiction (beyond the culturally dependent “honor”) – it just regulates them as they existed at that time.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Cursed? Levi was made into THE priestly tribe for all Israel. That doesn’t sound like a curse to me. More like the opposite. Levi was zealous for his fathers house, and was rewarded. Not cursed.

        If a father renounces his daughter as “property”, then she is abandoned property. However, deep in their hearts, this rankles, and fathers will resent it if their daughters are treated too blatantly like whores. If the father denies ownership of the daughter, get it in writing. Or at least have a conversation with witnesses.

        I am surprised by how many “Torah Observant” fathers claim that their daughters are adults and can do what they want. Wow.

        The government does claim ownership through the social insurance number, etc. So, if the biological fathers are renouncing claim to their daughters, look out for the lurking monster in the background: big daddy government loves his daughters, and doesn’t care if they whore around, as long as they are HAAAAAAPPY. He’ll happily enslave men to satisfy his daughters passions.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        You could even say that the government uses its daughters as “flirty fishes” to keep men ensnared. Women who are owned by patriarchal fathers and husbands aren’t much use for that. Patriarchy may weaken government in the here and now, but without patriarchy, government becomes MUCH weaker in the medium to long term.

  17. simple christian says:

    This is a nice theory and all but I’ve only ever heard of it argued in modern times. This seems completely contrary to how not just Christianity has treated marriage, but also the understanding of the ancient Jews. Is the toad wiser than them all? Or do you have evidence to the contrary?

    • It’s pretty simple, the Bible is very clear. I’m sorry if you are not aware of what the Bible says, but very few people are in modern times. The historical record of how Christianity treated marriage would probably curl your hair and I don’t care how the ancient Jews understood marriage.

      Toad’s wisdom is what it is. The Bible says what it says. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

  18. simple christian says:

    This is a nice theory and all but I’ve only ever heard of it argued in modern times. This seems completely contrary to how not just Christianity has treated marriage, but also the understanding of the ancient Jews. Is the toad wiser than them all? Do you have evidence that those closer to the writing who spoke these tongues held to your interpretation?

    [post didn’t show on first submittal apologies if a duplicate]

    • Could you be specific? I like to keep things Sola Scriptura and the New Testament nicely interprets what Genesis 2:24 says.

      You either get sex with prostitutes is OK, or you get sex with an eligible virgin means you’re married to her.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        False dilemma. Sex does not create a marriage; a transfer of ownership plus a marriage agreement creates a marriage. The consequence of a woman whoring around is death, if she refuses to reveal her accomplice. If she reveals her accomplice (notice the clause that says “IF THEY ARE FOUND”) then the man has to pay the price of marriage, but may or may not end up married, at the father’s discretion.

        • Mycroft, your fantasies are getting tiresome. Your wife needs to check your medication schedule and perhaps adjust your dosage. Or is it your daughters doing that? Perhaps they’ve been amusing themselves already by doing that. I’d check on it if I were you.

          If the woman is a free woman, marriage does not confer “ownership” of her, only authority over her. Sex with a eligible virgin does in fact create a marriage, which is exactly what Genesis 2:24 states.

          The consequence of a woman committing adultery was death, but keep in mind that “two or more witnesses” point. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture prohibiting a woman from having sex with a man eligible to marry her. Neither is there any prohibition on a woman working as a money-for-sex whore. This has been explained to you time and time again.

          Your reference to “if they are found” is to Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which the woman is raped. It says “she shall become his wife” and the Hebrew translated as “shall become” is the same exact word used in Genesis 2:24 for “shall become one flesh.” The entire point is her father did not have the authority to annul her marriage because she was raped. She made no agreement to marry which could be annulled.

          As I said, complete fantasy on your part.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Toad, you can’t interpret Deuteronomy without reference to Exodus.

        Exodus 22:16,17
        16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he
        shall surely endow her to be his wife.
        17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money
        according to the dowry of virgins.

        In your world, a rape causes marriage, but a seduction doesn’t? The rules in Torah don’t override each other, they complement and fill in detail for each other. Exodus 22 shows that if you lie with a maid, you have to pay the price, but it is up to the father if you get a marriage.

        Genesis 2:24 doesn’t support you either; Genesis 2:22 shows that God brought the woman to the man (Daddy handing daughter over to new husband) as the first part of the marriage.

        • In verse 16, that “to be” is not in the original text. What the verse says is

          “he shall surely endow her to be his wife.”

          She’s already his wife. Because they had sex.

          As to verse 17, you evidently have not read Numbers 30:5. The father forbids the agreement after the fact. So, if the father forbid the agreement to marry the man, he wasn’t eligible and the sex did not make her married. Thus he “refused to give her to him” fits exactly in line. She agreed to marry, he (after the fact forbid it), making the act resulting from that which was forbidden to be meaningless. Except that she’s no longer a virgin.

          Call it a legal fiction if you want, God said it.

  19. Don Quixote says:

    Hey Toad you were missed on this thread, where have you been?

  20. Don Quixote says:

    There seems to be some consensus here that pre marital sex is a sin as defined by the girl’s father, what think ye?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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