The last post was a bit of quick background on male commitment to marriage, which is automatic every time the man puts his penis in a woman’s vagina. That sounds really odd, but it’s like saying the commitment to purchase a car is made automatically every time the purchase contract is signed. The point is that for a man, the commitment to marry is made with the act of marriage, which is sexual intercourse. Not so for a woman.
Men and women are different and held, by God, to different standards.
The eligible virgin has no agency when it comes to marriage. By the term eligible, I speak of the relationship of the man to the woman. Some marital relationships are forbidden, such as the proscribed incestuous relationships (Leviticus 18) and thus cannot result in marriage. In such cases, a woman may be a virgin but she is not an eligible virgin. Another example is a woman who has been engaged to marry some man. That engagement makes her ineligible to marry any other man and the Bible describes her standing as that of a wife.
The eligible virgin has no agency because her consent is not required in order for her to be married. This is difficult for many to accept, but we see in Exodus 21:7-10 where a father has the authority to sell his daughter to be another man’s concubine, which is a form of matrimony which grants her conjugal rights. We also see in Deuteronomy 21:10-14 that the woman captured in battle becomes the man’s wife without her consent. Finally, we see in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the case of the woman who is raped into marriage to the man who forced her to have sex. Thus, an eligible virgin may be forced into marriage with the act of sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.
On the other side of the equation, an eligible virgin may choose to marry a man and according to Numbers 30:3-5, her father may forbid the marriage in the day he hears of it, thereby annulling the marriage as if it had never occurred. Thus, an eligible virgin may be forced into marriage against her will and may have her marriage that she desired and consented to annulled against her wishes. Therefore, she has no agency when it comes to marriage and her consent either for the marriage or against the marriage is irrelevant.
This is a matter of what Scripture actually says. There is no requirement for the eligible virgin to give her consent to marry and multiple examples in the Law of situations in which the woman is married over her objections and against her will. Obviously it would be desirable and good for the woman to willingly consent to her marriage and desire marriage to that man, but the eligible virgin’s consent is not required. The eligible virgin is married with the act of sexual intercourse and the man who takes her virginity is her husband by virtue of that act.
Thus, generally speaking, all women are virgins when they marry, she is bound to her husband as long as he lives and sex with any other man while she is still married is an act of adultery. That fact alone has huge implications for the modern church.
The Eligible Non-Virgin
The woman who is not a virgin and yet is not married (such as a widow or a legitimately divorced woman) has agency. Numbers 30:3-5 makes it clear that the virgin daughter is under the authority of her father and he has the authority to forbid any agreement she might make. Following that, Numbers 30:6-8 makes it clear that upon marriage the authority of the father passes to the husband, thus the virgin and the married woman are under authority and any agreement they might make is subject to review by their father or husband. Because as Genesis 3:16 states: “he shall rule over you.” Not so the woman who is not married and not a virgin. Numbers 30:9 states that the widow or the divorced woman are not under a man’s authority and any agreement or vow they make is binding upon them.
Specific to marriage, we notice that the Apostle Paul states in 1st Corinthians 7 that if a woman desires to marry she is to be allowed to marry. In verse 39, the woman who is no longer bound has the authority to marry whomever she desires, but only if he is a Christian.
This causes great distress to churchians because the eligible non-virgin must consent to marriage before the act of marriage will create a marriage between the man and woman. Given that there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from engaging in sexual intercourse, if the eligible non-virgin has sex with a man but does not consent to marry, it’s just sex. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, there being no prohibition there is no sin involved.
Crossing The Sexual Rubicon
All the churchians want to stand up and scream “FORNICATION” but that cannot be. Neither is it “PREMARITAL SEX” because the couple isn’t engaged to marry. The point is that either the Apostle Paul is a liar and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 is a lie, or it is not a sin for a man and woman who are eligible to marry to have sex. If the woman is a virgin, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and consents to marry, they are married. If the woman is not a virgin and does not consent to marry, the couple are not married (she did not consent) and neither are they in sin.
This is how the prostitute Rahab could be a righteous woman. Obviously she was not a virgin and not married (she was most likely a widow) and as an eligible non-virgin she was free to have sex with any man she chose and not be in sin. And if she got paid for it, that was not a sin either. In fact, the only prohibition on prostitution in all of Scripture is the prohibition on being a cult prostitute, prostitution as part of idolatrous worship. There is no prohibition on money-for-sex prostitution anywhere in Scripture.
From a Scriptural point of view, there is no difference between being a prostitute and being a farmer. A farmer could be a righteous farmer obeying the Law, or he could be a sinful farmer by violating the Law. Likewise, a prostitute could be a righteous prostitute (not violating the Law) or she could be a sinful prostitute (adultery or idolatry). So, if farming can be a moral and righteous way to make a living, so can prostitution.
Which sends the churchians into a frenzy of outrage. The one and only prohibition on using the services of a prostitute is found at 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 and that prohibition applies only to Christian men. There was no such prohibition found anywhere in the Law and under the Law, a married man could have sex with a legitimate prostitute and not be in sin. While there is a prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, there is nothing anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman, even a Christian woman, from being a prostitute.
Imagine Your Parents Having Sex
Most people find it rather uncomfortable (to say the least) to imagine their parents having sex. I’m not talking about starfish get-it-over-with duty sex. I’m talking about noisy, sweaty, wreck-the-bed fucking. For whatever reason, our minds simply don’t want to go there.
The idea that sex is dirty, evil or even just plain naughty got baked into the cultural cake a long time ago. No person can deny their parents had sex because that’s how they came into being. And wouldn’t you like to think that your parents enjoyed it? So… why is it so emotionally painful to imagine parents having sex? If your parents were married then obviously there isn’t anything immoral involved because sex and making babies is what marriage is supposed to be all about. Obeying that “be fruitful and multiply” command.
But… what could be worse than imagining your parents having sex?
What REALLY makes the churchians howl is applying this to the former prostitute Mary Magdalene. If Mary Magdalene was a righteous prostitute, meaning that she was not married, then any man who had sex with her was not in sin as long as he was eligible to marry her. That included Jesus. I am not saying He did, but if Jesus had sex with Mary Magdalene, He was not in sin.
Again, I’m not making the claim that Jesus was banging Mary Magdalene, but if He was, He was not in sin for doing so. This raises some questions for the peanuts gallery.
Did He? We don’t know. There is no record stating whether He did or didn’t, so anyone claiming that He just couldn’t have done it is full of shit because they weren’t there.
If He did, was He in sin? There is no prohibition that forbids any man from having sex with a prostitute in the Law. The only mention of prostitutes in the Law is Deuteronomy 23:17, which states that none of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute (prostitution as part of idolatry). Anyone who claims that Jesus would have been in sin if He had sex with Mary Magdalene is automatically making the claim that the Apostle Paul lied in Romans 4:15 and 5:13.
While the prohibition that forbids Christian men from having sex with prostitutes in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 didn’t apply because that came many years later, God does not change. On the other hand, Mary Magdalene was no longer a prostitute. She gave that up to become one of the followers of Jesus.
Sex with an eligible virgin means you’re married, whether she likes it or not.
Sex with an eligible non-virgin who consents to be married means you’re married.
Sex with an eligible non-virgin who doesn’t consent to marry is just sex and not a sin.