Questions and Objections, Part III, Sex With An Eligible Virgin = Marriage

More Objections

“If sex = marriage why does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 specifically state the virgin only becomes the wife if they are found out. In that vein why does it further state she shall be his wife because he humbled her. Why would God need to specify that if as you say she was his wife at the time of penetration? If she was already his wife God would not need to specify that she isn’t his wife until they are found out and he pays 50 shekels.”

We have three judgments that help us understand Genesis 2:24.  Two of the judgments concerned the conflict of Law between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:5.  Does the father’s authority to forbid any agreement his daughter makes extend to her agreement to marry (have sex) which is then followed by intercourse?  The answer is yes.  But, what if she didn’t make any agreement?  That was the point of having witnesses to the rape.  As they say, “you can’t rape the willing.”  This is what I wrote on Dalrock’s blog:

The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says. God provided us with three judgments that explain this.

1) The first judgement is found at Exodus 22:16-17, the case of the virgin who is not betrothed (meaning she’s eligible to be married) who is seduced (she agreed to have sex) and the question is whether her father forbids her agreement to marry the guy. According to Numbers 30, as her father he has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement she makes in the day he hears of it. In the day he hears of it he can either say nothing and she’s bound by that vow or agreement, or he can forbid it. Exodus 22:16-17 explains how it works in either case. In verse 16 the father says nothing, they are married and her husband has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17, the father forbids her agreement to marry, refusing to give her to the man who seduced her. They are not married and he has to pay the price for virgins.

2) The second judgment is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 and it concerns the case of the betrothed virgin who has sex. Because she is not an eligible virgin (she’s betrothed), sex with her (both willing and unwilling) does not create a marriage and the man who does it gets put to death for the crime of adultery. She may or may not be put to death depending on the circumstances.

3) The third judgment, found a bit later at verses 28-29, is the case of the eligible virgin (she is not betrothed) who is raped. If the rape is discovered (meaning it really was rape), she obviously didn’t make any agreement her father can forbid so she’s married to the man who took her virginity. Even though he raped her. Because when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who got her virginity and quite obviously, her consent is not necessary.

Therefore, the correct exegesis of Genesis 2:24 is simple: the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, with or without her consent.

Your asked:

“Why would God need to specify that if as you say she was his wife at the time of penetration?”

First, notice what that passage does not say, which is anything about the virgin who says she was raped but the rape was not discovered (meaning there were no witnesses).  It’s a he-said she-said issue.  What happens then?  The issue devolves to the authority of the father and it gets treated as a seduction (c.f. Exodus 22:16-17).  Based on his decision she may or not be married.   However, in the case of a rape that is discovered, she obviously made no agreement and there are witness to the fact she made no agreement, thus there is nothing for her father to forbid.  She is married according to the standard of Genesis 2:24 because they had sex and the virgin’s consent or lack of consent is irrelevant because she has no agency.

You state:

If she was already his wife God would not need to specify that she isn’t his wife until they are found out and he pays 50 shekels.

The text does not say she is not his wife until he pays the 50 shekels, it says he must pay the fixed price of 50 shekels of silver AND she shall be his wife.   They are married and that is the amount he owes her father.  Look at the example of Jacob and Rachel.  Jacob had to work for 7 years to marry Rachel.  Did he have to wait for 7 years?  No, he married Rachel and then he had to work for Laban for another 7 years.  He was obligated to pay the bride price and he was married.

You also asked:

“why does it further state she shall be his wife because he humbled her?”

Actually, the original text does not say that. Look at the verse from the NASB:

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

Now, let’s just change the punctuation (which isn’t in the original text) and see what happens.

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall become his wife.  Because he has violated her, he cannot divorce her all his days.

There is no punctuation in the original text.  The bias of the translators is at work here and that goes back all the way to Jerome, one of the men who claimed that marriage is by consent, not sex.  Changing the punctuation changes the meaning completely.  As is, the rape victim is being punished by being forced to marry her rapist.  However, the text just as easily supports the point I have been making and the difference between the two was a decision some translators made.

Better yet, let’s remove the punctuation.

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall become his wife because he has violated her he cannot divorce her all his days.

Where do you put the punctuation, and why?  Do you want this to read that God requires rape victims be punished by being forced to marry their rapist?  Hopefully not.

They are married because they met the requirements of Genesis 2:24.  The man has to pay a high bride price and she shall be his wife (imperative- meaning she is his wife and nothing changes that).  Because he has humbled her, he has his right to divorce her permanently taken away. Which means that regardless of her behavior, he can never divorce her, because he violated her, taking her against her will in front of witnesses.

Consider Exodus 21:22-25, which contains the concept of just punishment:  “Let the punishment fit the crime.”

“you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

He wanted her so bad that he raped her into marriage, violating her in front of witnesses, humiliating her, humbling her?   How does the punishment fit the crime?   First of all he’s going to pay more than double the Temple redemption price for her (the price for virgins) and second, he’s stuck with her all the days of his life no matter what she does.  He wanted her?  He’s got her now.  For all his days.  That’s letting the punishment fit the crime.

To claim (as does the Dalrock doctrine) that the community forced them to marry as punishment for raping her is to claim that God punishes rape victims for the “crime” of being raped.   Not only does that slander the character of God, it is a direct conflict (an antinomy) with Exodus 21:22-25 and Genesis 2:24.  In addition, it is a claim that the community has the authority to require a man marry a woman.  No, in Genesis 2:24 the authority to marry was granted to “a man” and no-one else.

Again, this is a judgment that results from the conflict of law between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:5.  The question is whether the father’s authority to forbid his daughter’s marriage when she was seduced also applies when she is publicly raped.  The answer is no, but there had to be witnesses that established the fact she was raped in deed rather than just in accusation.  Because we all know that girls will cry “RAPE” if they find it in their best interest to do so.

 

The Linguistics Argument Against “Sex = Marriage”

AmicusC said:

it appears you argument hinges on cleave to the wife as the part regarding penetrative sex i am curious if u can identify why cleave = penetration especially as I don’t believe the bible requires penetrative sex with God yet asks us to cleave to him see for example Deuteronomy 13:4

4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.

But I guess our definitions of kollao differ yours means penetrate mine means:

kollao, “to adhere to,” or “to join one’s self to.” This meaning is the reverse of the preceding. The Psalmist speaks of his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth (Psalms 137:6). We are told that a man should cleave unto his wife (Genesis 2:24;Matthew 19:5). It is said that Ruth clave unto her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:14), and that certain men clave unto Paul (Acts 17:34; compare Acts 4:23; 11:23 margin).

“Cleave” is also used in this sense to describe one’s adherence to principles. Paul admonished the Romans to cleave to that which is good (Romans 12:9).

In the Hebrew Scriptures the word “dabaq” is used 54 times and when used of human relationships it generally means to cling to without letting go, to be clung to tightly, to hold fast, to be committed to.  Except for Genesis 2:24 and arguably, 1st Kings 11:2, where it means sex.  However, there is a duality of meaning involved in those two passages.  Within the context of marriage the act it refers to is sex, the meaning of the act is commitment on the part of the man.

When used in Genesis 2:24, describing the creation of marriage, keep in mind that the act of penetrative intercourse is a man’s commitment to marriage.  Every time.  Imagine a word that means clinging to without letting go, being clung to tightly and the kind of sex that is epitomized by a man who had a thousand wives.  That’s the picture of a couple of newlyweds on their wedding night.  And as used in Genesis 2:24, the word means the act of sex because that is the God-given wedding ceremony by which a man marries a woman.  By that act the man gives his commitment to the marriage.

How do we know that is what the word means as it is specifically used in Genesis 2:24?

When Genesis 2:24 got translated into Greek the word “dabaq” was translated as the Greek word “kollao” and not surprisingly, just like the word “dabaq” the word “kollao” means to glue, to unite, to join; to knit together.  When used of human relationships it confers the idea of faithfulness and loyalty.   Notice the similarities with the Hebrew word “dabaq” and how they both demonstrate the man’s commitment to marriage every time he has intercourse.  Because the act of marriage is sexual intercourse and by that act the man signifies his commitment to marriage.

The text of 1st Corinthians 6:16 says “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.”  The word “kollao” (translated as “joins”) is used in this passage within the context of Genesis 2:24 to mean sex with a woman that results in becoming one flesh.  The act of becoming one body (sexual intercourse) causes God to make the two one flesh (c.f. Matthew 19:5-6).

But, how do we know that in the context of marriage it means sex and not a commitment ceremony?  Perhaps God is telling us not to marry prostitutes.

Why do men visit prostitutes?  The hallmark of a prostitute is (and it always has been) that at some point the prostitute spreads her legs receptively to allow the man to penetrate her.  Men visit prostitutes to have sex, but not just any sex.  They visit prostitutes to have sex that will not result in marriage, because the one thing prostitutes don’t do is consent to be married to their customers.  By definition, what prostitutes do not provide is faithfulness or loyalty because they are mercenary.  As the old saying goes, “you don’t pay a prostitute to have sex with you, you pay her to leave when you’re done with her.”

Do men visit prostitutes for commitment, or sex?

The traditional argument of the church (after they adopted the consent model of creating marriage) was that the Hebrew word “dabaq” meant commitment and that meant a man had to commit to his wife in a public ceremony, which formed the marriage, then they had sex, which they claimed was the becoming one flesh part of Genesis 2:24.  Or not.  The church claimed that sex was immaterial to marriage because marriage was all about consent.

 

Understanding Translation

When we look at a specific word, we first look at all the other uses of that word and the context that word is used in.  From that we get a sense of how the word should be translated (the meaning) in the verse in question.   In the case of the word “dabaq” the word is only used twice within the context of a husband-wife relationship, in Genesis 2:24 and in 1st Kings 11:2.  One might argue that Solomon loved being committed to his 700 wives and 300 concubines, but any reasonable observer would reach the conclusion that a much better translation is that Solomon loved having sex with them.

Why would that word be translated as commitment instead of sex in 1st Kings 11:2?  Because tradition.  Keep in mind that the man who did the first official translation of the Bible was Jerome and he is famous for his hatred of sex.  In fact, it was his position that sex (even within marriage) and salvation were incompatible.  Bible translators are resistant to change and give a great deal of weight to how any given meaning of a word has traditionally been translated.  They are reluctant to make changes, especially if changing the meaning of a word results in a major doctrinal change.

So, do we go with the most reasonable interpretation and translate the word “dabaq” as used within the context of marriage in 1st Kings 11:2 as “sex”?   If we do, that lends a great deal of weight to the argument that as used in Genesis 2:24 in the context of the creation of marriage the word means the act of sexual intercourse.   Obviously, anyone defending the tradcon consent model of the creation of marriage (Dalrock’s Special Sauce doctrine) will oppose defining “dabaq” as anything other than commitment because “commitment” supports their pre-existing beliefs.

But what happens when we see “dabaq” translated into Greek within that specific context (meaning the entire verse was translated) so we know what whatever “dabaq” means in Genesis 2:24 is exactly what “kollao” means in Genesis 2:24?  Context is key when it comes to translation.   Does the usage of the word “kollao” in the New Testament shed any light on the meaning of “dabaq” as it is used in Genesis 2:24?   We look and again we see that within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 (Paul quoted part of the verse and kept the same structure so you can’t miss it), the word “kollao” was used to indicate sexual intercourse in such a way that it cannot be denied.  There literally cannot be any confusion on this.

Do men go to prostitutes for commitment, or for sex? 

Observing that, do we go with the translation by stoic hermit Jerome who hated sex and sexual pleasure, or do we go with the Apostolic translation of the word?  This is an either-or choice with huge doctrinal implications because the meaning of the word “dabaq” in Genesis 2:24 has to be the same as the meaning of the word “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6:16.

A = B and B = C, therefore A = C.  It’s that simple.

That also means that the word “dabaq” certainly means “sex” as used in 1st Kings 11:2, not “commitment”.

Keep in mind that what I and others like me are able to do today in terms of Bible study was impossible just 30 years ago and at all times previous to that.  I’m talking about databases that allow one to do word searches, quickly compare Scripture with Scripture, with cross references to concordances and the ability to drill down to the original languages with more cross references to lexicons and dictionaries.  Perhaps nobody noticed until the last couple of years the connection between “dabaq” and “kollao” and the use of “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6;16.  Who cares?  We know about it now.

 

The Early Church Went With Jerome’s Translation

The “Patristic Fathers” of the early church hated sex and sought to downplay any mention of sex, claiming that marriage was established by consent, not sex.  The theologians who followed in their footsteps made the claim that because the other 53 times the word “dabaq” was used (and especially when used of human relationships) the word meant “commitment”, therefore it must mean “commitment” in Genesis 2:24.

The “interpretation” of that was “that’s the commitment ceremony in front of witnesses!  The man and woman must consent to being married and have a ceremony first before they can have sex!”  Which meant that the sex part of marriage was the “becoming one flesh” that came after the commitment ceremony.

Over the course of the next 1200 years the church developed the “teachings and traditions of the church” and claimed that their magic book of medieval opinions trumped Scripture.  After all, they decided what Scripture was and only they could interpret it!  The Pope is infallible!

For those who don’t care for the magic book of medieval opinions and prefer to go with what God said, the problem with Jerome’s interpretation is it won’t work for multiple reasons.

  1. We know that the word “dabaq” means the act of sex because of the Apostolic translation of the word in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and as it turns out, that was the perfect word to use in both Hebrew and Greek because the act of sexual intercourse is the man’s act that demonstrates his commitment to the marriage.  The virgin has no agency and her commitment or lack of it is irrelevant.
  2. We know from Matthew 19 that Jesus said God makes the two one flesh, so the act of becoming one flesh is not something the man does, it’s something God does.  Paul, in Ephesians 5:28-32 compared the one-flesh union of marriage with the one-body union of the Christian with Christ, making the point that they were both a great mystery.  That means “they shall become one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 is referring to what God does as a result of the mans act of penetrating the woman, not the penetration itself.
  3. The “commitment” interpretation created antinomies with other portions of Scripture, which meant that the extra words “to be” had to be inserted into the text of Exodus 22:16 and the outcome of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 had to mean the rape victim was punished for being raped by being forced to marry her rapist.  Which creates further antinomies with other passages.
  4. As we’ve seen, the meaning of the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 is the same as the meaning of the word “kollao” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16. Either they both mean “commitment ceremony” or they both mean “sex” but current doctrine has them defined as “commitment ceremony” in Genesis 2:24 and “sex” in 1st Corinthians 6:16.   That is incorrect.  Either the virgin is married when she first has sex, or there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids Christian men from having sex with legitimate prostitutes.  Which do you think the women of the church will choose?

The rest, as they say, is history.

On to the objections about polygyny in the next post.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way. Bookmark the permalink.

30 Responses to Questions and Objections, Part III, Sex With An Eligible Virgin = Marriage

  1. bob k. mando says:

    have you seen my demonstration of why Jerome was Satanic?

  2. crackingshow says:

    If a man marries a woman every time they have sex, that must ruin women, because depending on how much of a slut she is, she could easily have 100 or more husbands before she hits thirty. She thinks it’s just a good time but in reality she’s marrying a whole bunch of guys. No wonder so many women are on anti depressants and drink loads of alcohol!

    “obviously, anyone defending the tradcon consent model of the creation of marriage (Dalrock’s Special Sauce™ doctrine) will oppose defining “dabaq” as anything other than commitment because “commitment” supports their pre-existing beliefs.” I have had that exact response. When I brought up the dabaq = kollao = sex from 1 Cornthians 6:16 he resorted to the usual: ‘you are only saying this because you want to sleep around, you are sex obsessed, you are misogynistic etc.’

    Did Dalrock ever have anything useful to say other than things are very bad, and they will continue to be bad, and there’s nothing you can do?

    This is anglosaxon, I forgot my login details to that account and I had to make a new one.

    • “If a man marries a woman every time they have sex, that must ruin women, because depending on how much of a slut she is, she could easily have 100 or more husbands before she hits thirty.’

      A man and an eligible virgin are married when they have sex. After that occurs the woman is a married woman. If she has sex with another man while married it’s called adultery, not marriage, because she is a married woman.

      When they say:

      “‘you are only saying this because you want to sleep around, you are sex obsessed, you are misogynistic etc.’”

      You should respond with:

      “No, not at all. I say this to point out that because you didn’t get your so-called wife’s virginity, you are not married to her you disgusting adulterer. How dare you publicly live in adultery claiming you are married, lying about Scripture because you want to have sex with another man’s wife. You want to commit adultery so you lie about what Scripture says. Obviously you hate women and what’s next? Are you a pedophile too?”

      • crackingshow says:

        What do you do if the people who are the SJWs are your family members and close friends? Use the rhetoric against them anyway and accept there is a chance they will end up hating you?

        • As far as family members who are SJW’s, they already hate me. The reason is over the years I have been right and they were wrong on any number of issues that devolve to worldview. One in particular hates me because my existence prevents him from feeling like a success.

          My friends are not SJW’s. Period.

    • necroking48 says:

      @crackingshow

      Dalrock is a despicable liar and a coward who banned Toad and me for proving his retarded doctrines wrong
      Dalrock’s special sauce view of marriage is laughable if it wasn’t so tragic

  3. McS says:

    Having read (almost) the whole blog no reasonable argument with your logic aside from badfeels, I have a couple questions.

    In Solomon’s case, what is the difference between wives and concubines? (Cont)

    • Wives came into the marriage as free women, concubines were slaves. Observe Exodus 22:2-11, a father could sell his daughter to be slave-wife of another (free) man, or the slave-wife of one of his slaves.

      The father’s authority was limited in this respect that he could not profane his daughter by making her a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29).

      There were also slave-women who were captured in battle (Deuteronomy 21:10-14)

      The rules for slave-wives were not the same as for free women (status is important) and we see that a concubine was not subject to the death penalty for adultery because she was not free (Leviticus 19:20-22)

      One of the commenters claimed that slaves could not be wives and used (as evidence) that the Law did not apply to them, but that is a faulty argument that fails to take into account status.

      Why were Adam and Eve married when they had sex and became one flesh? Because Eve was a virgin. Why is the prostitute who has sex and becomes one flesh with her client not married to him? Because she was not a virgin and her consent to marry was required in order for her to be married. Status counts.

      If slaves cannot be wives, then there is no such thing as Christian marriage because by definition all Christians are slaves of Christ who were purchased with a price. Again, status is important. In fact, it is the Christian’s status as a slave that results in the Law not applying to them, why certain things in the Law were changed for Christians in the New Testament.

      • McS says:

        Thanks for the quick reply. If I understand it correctly, the concubine status is irrelevant to us in the west at this point in time. I had completely forgotten the slave of Christ relationship, though will chew it over. Rather than asking you to recap on this:”In fact, it is the Christian’s status as a slave that results in the Law not applying to them, why certain things in the Law were changed for Christians in the New Testament” I’ll go read up again myself.

        Second question, what is the godly response to undesired celibacy? “Just deal with it / find a wife” is the most obvious answer, though skipping 20 years of backstory- not visible achievable at this point.

        • ” If I understand it correctly, the concubine status is irrelevant to us in the west at this point in time.”

          I’m not sure that I agree with that, because it calls into question the meaning of servitude, which implies a lack of choice on the part of the individual in terms of entering the relationship. That’s also a rather nuanced statement and I don’t have time to expand on it.

          It’s been said that in our modern society, if a man wants a woman he needs to have two out of the following three:

          Looks
          Assets
          Game

          If he has to have just one of them, it has to be Game.

          *Continued*

  4. @MsC

    “Second question, what is the godly response to undesired celibacy? “Just deal with it / find a wife” is the most obvious answer, though skipping 20 years of backstory- not visible achievable at this point.”

    There is a Latin maxim that states “nihil difficile volenti”, which means “nothing is impossible for one who wants it.”

    I don’t know what your backstory is, but the truth is if you’re talking about 20 years, that would put you probably over the age of 40, probably 50. It wouldn’t matter if you were in your 60’s because it’s a target-rich environment when it comes to women who are looking for a relationship. The question you have to answer is whether you want a wife or you just want to get laid.

    Your question concerned the Godly response to celibacy. What do you want the response to be? God has told you what not to do and you have your conscience to guide you, so as long as you are not in violation or either God’s Word or your conscience, you’re fine.

    What I can tell you with assurance is that your fellow Christians will judge you hard on virtually any decision you make if it’s anything other than according to their doctrine of find a wife or endure celibacy. Masturbation? They’ll slam you and condemn you. They won’t make a peep over their oh-so-Christian women with their vibrators and dildos, but let one of them know you’ve got a fleshlight and they’ll go nuts.

    And if you were to move a couple of willing widows into your house without all the modern church requirements of state sanction, rings and vows…. and you’ll be hounded out of your church. And if you were to formalize things with a couple of women it would be even worse.

    Because modern Christians do not hold to Biblical doctrines and they violate God’s Word by judging in areas they are specifically commanded not to judge.

    • crackingshow says:

      So you can do one night stands without sinning? Isn’t that very similar to Paul banning men from banging prostitutes?

      • Crackingshow, given that the odds of you actually meeting a woman who is eligible to marry are extremely small, what you refer to as a “one night stand” is in all likelihood adultery. If the woman is a virgin and you have sex with her, she is your wife. If she’s married then having sex with her is adultery. Most women today have no idea they are actually married to the man who got their virginity.

        As I have pointed out repeatedly, at least 80% of the so-called “marriages” in the church are actually cases of institutionalized adultery because the woman was already married to another man when she “officially” married. In other words, it was a fraud.

        However, you might be able to find a woman who is no longer a virgin who is legitimately eligible to marry. If you had sex with her it would not generally be a sin because she is eligible to marry and having sex with her is not prohibited.

        As a Christian, that which is not of faith is sin (Romans 14:23). Therefore, if you believe it to be a sin then it is sin to you. If you believe the right thing to do is not have sex with her until you throw a party with a dress, rings and vows, then it would be sin if you had sex with her without making a commitment to her (James 4:17).

        To answer your question, as to having sex with a woman who is not your wife, the Apostle Paul said that it’s good not to do that. I agree.

        • crackingshow says:

          Yes it’s something that’s possible to do without sinning but I’ve got a sensitive conscience in this area so for me I can’t do that. For me right now I need to get game and then go find a wife whilst keeping up going to the gym lots.

  5. Bart says:

    I remember when my wife and I got married (both virgins at the time). We had the wedding ceremony. Her father gave her hand to me. We made the vows in front of many witnesses. The pastor declared us man and wife. We signed the State marriage certificate.

    Still, somewhere inside I knew it wasn’t real yet. I could still bail out if I wanted to.

    Once I penetrated her,. I knew that it was real, and that there was no going back.

    I didn’t understand any of this stuff back then. Still, God’s Law was already written on my heart, and I knew the truth deep down.

    Sex with an eligible Virgin equals marriage.

    • crackingshow says:

      I was in church on Sunday. We heard a sermon on Genesis 2.24. He explicitly said that sex does not mean marriage, instead being ‘united’ (we use the NIV) does. He said that ‘become one flesh’ means sex which is stupid. So being united i.e becoming married is where you sign the piece of paper from the government which says you are married. But it says ‘and they will become one flesh’ which means the act of uniting causes you to become one flesh. Obviously signing a piece of paper some politician made up doesn’t make you one flesh, so cleaving or uniting has to mean sex.

      The church is utterly useless.

  6. JT Anderson says:

    While it’s an interesting idea, I find that your sex = marriage theory is rather fragile. For instance, in Matthew chapter 1, it explicitly states:

    “And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son”

    Clearly, in this instance, sex and marriage are separated.

    Also, lest we think that to be special case, in 2 Samuel, when Tamar was about to be raped by her step-brother, she pleaded with him:

    “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this disgraceful thing! As for me, where could I get rid of my reproach? And as for you, you will be like one of the fools in Israel. Now therefore, please speak to the king, for he will not withhold me from you.”

    If she knew she was about to be raped and (by your definition) married, why did she think it necessary to be first given to him?

    • Actually, JT, it’s your understanding of Scripture that is rather fragile.

      If you note what is written in Numbers 22:24 when the BETROTHED VIRGIN has sex with a man who is not her betrothed, the man is put to death because he violated his neighbors wife. In this case, wife is a legal status. She is his wife but he has not yet consummated his marriage. She is still a virgin.

      Obviously what Joseph did was to “take” his wife but she remained a virgin, which means he had not yet consummated the union and thereby married her.

      In the case of Tamar, she was lying to him or perhaps she was ignorant of the Law and believed it to be true, but what she said is irrelevant. The Law specifically forbid such a union because they had the same father (Leviticus 18:9).

      Contrary to your mistaken comprehension of what I have written, Tamar could not have been married by Amnon with the act of sexual intercourse because as his half-sister she was not eligible to marry him. This is why you will see me frequently use the term “eligible virgin” instead of merely saying “virgin” when I write about these things.

  7. solomon77 says:

    As someone trained in persuasion, I can see what you are doing.

    You have made a suggestion that Genesis 2:24 says that sexual intercourse initiates a marriage.

    Once that anchor is established, you then show several examples that confirm your claim. This is known as “confirmation bias” and is very easy to do. We all do it. We can often see it in others but rarely in ourselves.

    After finding several examples that fit your definition, it appears to be true. The debating over the various examples and definitions only serve to elevate the importance of your definition in our minds.

    You have gotten us to “think past the sale” and accept your definition as valid while we debate the details and implications.

    Logically, the only argument you have put forth is (in your own words):

    “And as used in Genesis 2:24, the word means the act of sex because that is the God-given wedding ceremony by which a man marries a woman. By that act the man gives his commitment to the marriage.”

    In other words, word = sex = marriage because

    Everything else is simply showing how there are many examples that fit your definition. But the same could be done for ceremony = marriage.

    The real issue at stake is not whether you can find proof to support your view, but whether this technicality us even important in the first place.

    A plain reading of Scripture simply indicates that men take wives and women are given as wives. God didn’t seem to be overly concerned with the technicalities.

    I say these things in hopes that we won’t put any unnecessary stumbling blocks in front of Christian men to cause them to think they’re sinning when they’re not.

    As a fellow blogger on Biblical masculinity, I am glad to see a blog that emphasizes masculinity and isn’t bound to false teachings on sexuality. But in this particular case, I don’t think think this argument is edifying.

    • Solomon77

      “The real issue at stake is not whether you can find proof to support your view, but whether this technicality us even important in the first place.”

      You are wrong on both counts. First, I have provided a robust argument that has withstood years of attack without being refuted.

      As to proof, I have provided my exegesis, repeatedly. In order to understand Genesis 2:24 it’s necessary to consider it in light of the judgments of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, as well as Christ’s teaching in Matthew 19. As to the meaning of the words, the dabaq – kollao translation provided in Matthew 19 and defined in 1st Corinthians 6:16 within the context of Genesis 2:24 is conclusive.

      What I don’t think you’re grasping is that sexual intercourse *is* God’s marriage ceremony that is described in Genesis 2:24 and with that act an eligible virgin is married every time. God gave no requirement to have a betrothal period or a party with witnesses because such things are strictly voluntary. It is true that if an agreement to do such things is made they are required, but absent such an agreement sex is all it takes to marry the eligible virgin.

      I have also cited the history of the church that details how the current doctrines concerning sexual morality came to be, which according to the historical record is irrefutable. The early church “fathers” threw out the Biblical standards of sexual morality and replaced them with a blend of stoic philosophy, pagan ethics and Roman law. Among other things, they claimed that marriage was established by consent rather than by sexual intercourse, which was both Roman custom and law.

      Second, you are wrong in assuming there is no importance in this, because the issue of how and when a marriage begins is central to Biblical sexual morality.

      Marriage begins with the act of sexual intercourse, which is why “sex outside marriage” is not forbidden anywhere in Scripture. Adultery, incest and male homosexuality are all forbidden in the Law and the New Testament forbids Christian men from having sex with prostitutes. However, what the Apostle Paul said about having sex with a woman who is not your wife was basically “It’s good not to do that.”

      Consider that adultery is a crime that warrants the death penalty. Adultery requires a married woman, so knowing exactly when a woman is married is rather important in terms of adultery.

      We see this today because the failure to understand when marriage begins has resulted in a pandemic of adultery within the church.

      Given that the words in Scripture are not going to change, there are only a few options.

      One is to try to defend current doctrine from Scripture, which is impossible because current doctrine concerning sexual morality is not supported by Scripture and in some cases conflicts with Scripture.

      Another is to accept the exegesis I have provided, which is in complete agreement with all of Scripture (no antinomies). I have argued this repeatedly in different forums and I have not been refuted. The truth is that I can’t be refuted from the Bible because I’m correct.

      A third is to come up with something new to explain why I’m wrong and the “orthodox” view is wrong. Good luck.

      My lack of “false teachings on sexuality” is due to the fact that what I write is what the Bible actually teaches. All of it is centered on when marriage begins. However, it’s an interesting thing, because God put some checks and balances in there.

      You might want to read the protocol for dealing with so-called “single” women.

      • solomon77 says:

        I have no doubt that you can defend your view against attacks, but that is my point.

        You have defined the parameters in such a way where no one can conclusively disprove what you claim. You then claim that this proves you are speaking the truth. This is the “argument from ignorance” fallacy.

        Furthermore, words by themselves are ambiguous so it is dangerous to make precise doctrinal claims based on definitions of words.

        Before we can drill down into the technicalities we have to ask, “what is the purpose of these laws?”

        The Apostle Paul gives a general principle when he tells us in 1 Timothy 1:

        “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching”

        Jesus taught that the sum of the law is love. But God knew that for those who would not do right to their neighbor out of love, self-preservation and fear of punishment were necessary to keep lawless people from destroying society:

        “But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it [the government] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.”

        So in regards to these passages about rape and seducing virgins, it is clear that they were laws made for men who had no love for their neighbor. They would be perfectly fine with playing the “pump-and-dump” game with young virgins without regard to the pain and humiliation they would bring to these women and their fathers.

        Because of this, God, in his wisdom, made a law that required these types of men to take responsibility for where they stuck their dicks.

        We are talking about civil laws made for criminals, not laws about what defines a marriage.

        • “You have defined the parameters in such a way where no one can conclusively disprove what you claim.”

          Everything rests on the authority of what the Bible actually says and does not say. No one can conclusively disprove what I’m saying using the authority of the Bible because what I teach is what the Bible teaches, which refutes modern doctrine concerning sexual morality.

          What this boils down to is simple: the doctrine I teach agrees completely with the Bible in all respects and creates no antinomies. The accepted doctrine taught today does not agree with the Bible and is in many cases contradicted by the Bible. If you choose to support the accepted doctrine, you’ll find that you cannot defend it using the Bible. If you attempt to refute me, you’ll find that you cannot do so using the Bible.

          “Furthermore, words by themselves are ambiguous so it is dangerous to make precise doctrinal claims based on definitions of words.”

          Words mean things and that is why it’s so important that we know what the Hebrew word “dabaq” means as used in Genesis 2:24. Thankfully, Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture and we don’t have to go any further than the New Testament to see exactly what the word means as used in Genesis 2:24, which makes it clear the definition is sexual intercourse.

          With respect to your quote from 1st Timothy 1 and the purpose of the Law… Keep in mind that according to Paul in Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the Law defines what sin is for everyone, while Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 explain that we can also sin by violating our conscience. How the Law impacts the Christian is a status issue, which I explained in my last post.

          “So in regards to these passages about rape and seducing virgins, it is clear that they were laws made for men who had no love for their neighbor.”

          Really? Exodus 22:28-29 and Exodus 22:16-17 are judgments that dealt with the conflict of law between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:3-5. These judgments are not separate laws, they are judgments that define the particulars with respect to the intersection of the Law of Marriage and the Law of Vows. You should probably read Numbers 30 rather carefully.

          When the woman marries the authority over her immediately passes from her father to the husband. So, if a man seduces an eligible virgin, he is now in complete authority over her. If he has no agreement with the father as to bride price, does that mean he gets her for free? As you can see, there is money on the table in addition to the daughter who was seduced and is no longer a virgin.

          In the Exodus 22 passage the issue is that according to Genesis 2:24 the eligible virgin is married with the act of sexual intercourse. However, the authority of the father in Numbers 30:3-5 gives him the authority to forbid any agreement his daughter makes in the day he hears of it.

          Does the father have the authority to forbid his daughter’s agreement to marry even though she had already carried that agreement through to its conclusion and had sex with the man? Obviously the father would argue one way and the seducer would argue the other, so Moses gave his judgment.

          In verse 16 we see (according to Numbers 30:3-5) that the father hears of it and allows it to stand. The man has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17 we see the father forbidding his daughter’s agreement and in doing so, the man is not eligible to marry her, thus they are not married because the father absolutely refused to give her. He has annulled her marriage. And the man still has to pay the amount equal to the bride price.

          In Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the question is whether the father has the authority to forbid a marriage in which the eligible virgin made no agreement to marry. That raises the question of how we *know* she made no agreement. Obviously you are familiar with the ability of women to claim rape where there was none if it benefits them to do so.

          Take special note of the requirement that the rape had to be “discovered” (witnesses to the fact she made no agreement). If the rape was discovered, they are married because she made no agreement her father could forbid, which is the limit of his authority under Numbers 30.

          Thus, with the act of sexual intercourse and no agreement the father could forbid, they are married. Because he has humbled (violated her, humiliated her) he must pay a very high bride price (about 2.5 times her Temple redemption value) to the father and his right to divorce her at any time in the future is rescinded. He wanted her that badly? She’s his for the rest of his life and no matter what she does he can’t divorce her.

          The requirement of witnesses to the rape means she cannot claim rape following a seduction in order to gain advantage, such as avoiding Daddy’s judgment and the guarantee of no divorce.

          Notice also, there is no mention of what happens if they were not discovered, which means no witnesses testimony that there was no agreement. In that case it’s a he-said she-said and everything devolves to the authority of the father.

          “We are talking about civil laws made for criminals, not laws about what defines a marriage.”

          Again, what you are referring to are judgments based on the Law of Marriage and the Law of Vows and these are both part of the moral law concerning marriage, not the civil law. Interestingly, Numbers 30 is in large part the implementation of God’s judgment of woman in Genesis 3;16, “he shall rule over you.” And, again, I’ve written about this before. Repeatedly.

          You should read through the “Theology For Men of the West” series (linked in the blog header). There are 17 critical posts linked there that cover Biblical Sexual Morality. You might be interested in the post on Hypergamy, but you should also read the post on Genesis 3:16 and being fit to rule.

          So, you either believe the Bible to be true or you don’t. The question of when marriage begins is a very legitimate one because on that question hinges the offense of adultery.

          We have the authority of Jesus on the subject (in Matthew 19), who cited and quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage. Because that is what Genesis 2:24 is, a grant of authority to the man. That passage defines how a marriage is created.

          Jesus further helped us understand Genesis 2:24 by stating that joining the two as one flesh is the act of God, not man (Matthew 19:6). Sexual intercourse is the act of man, becoming one flesh is the result of sexual intercourse and is the act of God.

          The Apostle Paul further elaborated on that in Ephesians 5:28-33, describing the one-flesh union of the man and woman as the same as the one-body union of Christians with Christ. Paul also makes clear that the one-flesh union is not synonymous with marriage because a man will have sex and become one flesh with a prostitute but not be married to her (1st Corinthians 6:15-16). In fact, that passage clearly demarcates the difference between sex and becoming one flesh.

          So, we have both the linguistic point that the Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sexual intercourse and we have the testimony of both Christ and the Apostle Paul that becoming one flesh is an act of God and a great mystery.

          Then there is the issue of what Scripture does not say. Adam and Eve had sexual intercourse, God made the two one flesh and they were married. Period. No witnesses, no party, no betrothal period, nothing but sexual intercourse was required on the part of the man. No mention of Eve’s consent either.

          In the recent brawl over at Dalrock’s blog, he claimed that because a man can have sex with a prostitute and become one flesh with her and not be married, there has to be something more: that sex alone will not make a woman married.

          That argument fails completely because Adam and Eve were married with nothing more than the act of sexual intercourse. The answer to the perplexing issue of why they were married and the prostitute and her customer are not is answered by the difference in status between the eligible virgin and the woman no longer bound in marriage. A virgin holds a much different status and interestingly, God gave all women a tamper-proof seal on their vagina’s that is designed to be ruptured and bleed with the first act of sexual intercourse.

          But, maybe this is just about sex. I linked to the protocol post in a previous comment. Did you read it? If you want a wife you must first ensure that she is either a virgin or legitimately able to marry if she’s not. You cannot marry another man’s wife, that’s called adultery.

          If you want to have sex without being married, find a woman who is eligible to marry who is not a virgin and have at it.

          Let’s say you’ve found a girl who is not a virgin (meaning she’s a married woman) but does not know she is married. Whether you want to marry her or just have sex with her, the procedure is the same. If she was in her youth and living in her fathers house when she (voluntarily) gave up her virginity, her father can annul the resulting marriage with seven words:

          “I forbid you to marry ________ ________.

          That is it, her father has forbidden it in the day he hears of it and she is not married. The Lord will forgive her because her father has forbidden her. I wrote the post “Schrodinger’s Cats” to explain it the nuances of how that works.

          So, knowing that, as I stated in the protocol post, seduce her and use the father’s annulment as a compliance test. If she’s that into you, she’ll do it and from that point you can have sex with her and not be in sin. Unless your conscience convicts you, in which case you will be. Either way, you can actually leave her better off than when you found her.

          • solomon77 says:

            You seem to be stuck on a loop. You’re obsessing over technicalities and missing the point.

            I’ll leave you with this passage from 1 Timothy 1. I encourage you to examine your motives to make sure they are pure before God:

            remain on at Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith. But the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. For some men, straying from these things, have turned aside to fruitless discussion, wanting to be teachers of the Law, even though they do not understand either what they are saying or the matters about which they make confident assertions.

            But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

          • No.

            The argument you are making is “I can’t refute you so I’m declaring your argument to be irrelevant” followed by irrelevant quotes and much waving of hands. The end goal, as always, is to preserve the status quo of modern doctrine, which is Biblically indefensible.

            Modern doctrine concerning sexual morality is completely wrong because it did not come from Scripture, it is a homogenized blend of Stoic philosophy, Pagan ethics and belief and Roman law.

            And, interestingly, you claim I’m missing the point but you have yet to state a point. So why don’t you try laying out your doctrine of sexual morality.

            Take the churchian challenge (linked in the blog header) and let’s see how your doctrine stands up to the totality of Scripture.

            Be prepared to deal with the fact that God does not change.

  8. solomon77 says:

    Seeing that you have revealed yourself to be a gamma male, I see no need to continue this discussion.

    • Finally we see the “true colors” moment.

      The entire discussion revolves around what the Bible actually says and does not say, which means the Bible is the only authority. I provide an exegesis of Scripture, using only Scripture.

      You objected to the doctrine laid out here and provided your opinion with nothing to back it up.

      Your opinion was soundly refuted because you have no clue what you are talking about. Evidently you don’t agree with me, but the standard is the Bible and if I’m wrong all you have to do is point out where. You objected to that because it doesn’t let you win.

      “You have defined the parameters in such a way where no one can conclusively disprove what you claim. You then claim that this proves you are speaking the truth. This is the “argument from ignorance” fallacy.”

      The problem with your argument is what we have here is known as a contested issue of fact. A controversy to which there is a specific standard, the Bible. I am claiming that I am correct and I made my argument. You attacked my exegesis, claiming it’s incorrect, but you failed to make any claims of your own. I made that point, too, explaining that you have one standard (Scripture) and three choices. You can support and defend the so-called “orthodox” doctrine, you can join me and accept what I’ve been teaching, or you can reject both and come up with something on your own.

      And you were challenged to actually make a point instead of complaining and to provide your own doctrine of sexual morality. Or just to take the churchian challenge. In other words, fish or cut bait. Your reaction was typical.

      Seeing that you have revealed yourself to be a gamma male, I see no need to continue this discussion.”

      You choose to run away from a fight you know you cannot win and as you leave, you toss your most hurtful insult, calling me a gamma male.

      Gamma Is As Gamma Does.

      Your butthurt, lies, lack of coherence and projection are coming through loud and clear, but it’s also worth noting that calling someone a gamma while running away after being called out is probably the biggest gamma tell of them all.

  9. Hazor says:

    “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. And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.” – Genesis 34:2-3

    Note that the language suggests that the cleaving (“dabak”) is the result of sex, not a ceremony or magic paper.

    • Hazor says:

      Also worth noting, the “cleaving” (the same word used in Genesis 2:24) occurs BEFORE Dinah is publicly recognized as being Sheckem’s wife:

      “And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.” – Gen 34: 8

      • Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying. While you are correct, the point is that the marriage ceremony in which the man commits to the marriage IS the act of sex with the virgin because the act of penetration is how the man commits. The eligible virgin has no agency, her consent is not necessary or required (although good to have), with the act of sexual penetration she is bound in marriage to her husband.

        It was the early church that eliminated sex as the formative act of marriage, replacing it with consent in line with Roman Law.

    • Nice try, but no.

      You are trying to separate the dual meaning of the word “dabaq” with respect to marriage, but with respect to marriage you can’t. Because the word “dabaq” not only means commitment within the context of the marriage ceremony, it also means sex. The man gives his commitment to marriage with the act of sexual intercourse.

      This is the same as Genesis 3:16 and the word translated as “desire”. See the post on being fit to rule for exegesis. The word means both a desire to conquer and a sexual desire.

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