I tried that once. Didn’t end well
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
0: When does marriage begin? - Structured discussion
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
Not the actions; the result. Obviously Shechem was not married to Dinah even after he violated her.
I’m sure this will not be answered or the answer will attempt to sidestep the obvious.
What result? I hate to validate @NickF here but I may have to sidestep. How in the Hahira, Georgia are these passages about forming a “marriage”?
A brief examination of the rape of Dinah appears to imply a valid one flesh relationship may have been formed. It would of course been undone when Shechem’s neck took on a macabre resemblance to his foreskin.
I’m not going to take the time to go over the Samson story right now but if I recall correctly Delilah was a harlot, a complicated category that needs resolving but is not germane to the base conversation, it’s an exception not a rule.
The deeper question is why does your argument hinge on these obviously fringe cases? One of them involves genocide! Do you not think that God can and will communicate vitally important topics in a simple and straightforward manner?
I’m sorry if it seems like @NickF is right and I’m sidestepping the issue but I don’t see an issue here to be sidestepped. These passages don’t touch on the topic of forming a “marriage” and they certainly don’t relate the actions of anyone we should be emulating.
This is so stupid. I’m trying to write a serious article about this and it’s so damn simple and obvious that I can barely get enough information together to make it worth calling an article.
Which of course is still scads more information than the rest of you can present. I am so frustrated that I have yo waste time on this.
Which of course is still scads more information than the rest of you can present. I am so frustrated that I have yo waste time on this.
It never states that Samson slept with Delilah. He may have; it does say that he loved her, but the woman in question, whom he slept with, goes unnamed. Also, it is not specifically stated whether Dinah's engagement with Shechem, was consensual or not.
I’m confused about what it is you’re saying then.
Last edited:
Me too
Basically, you do not recall correctly. When I spoke of Samson sleeping with a woman, that was not Delilah.
Okay but that highlights the obscurity of this example even more. Why do you have to go this far afield to find a verse to support the position?
There are few references mentioned in Scripture of intercourse outside of marriage. These two examples give us all we really need to refute the sex = marriage argument.
I'll throw in another example. Tamar tricks Judah into impregnating her. She keps it a secret, but holds onto his signet ring. He orders that she be executed. She then reveals that he is the father of her babies. Why all the secrecy, if all she would have had to do, is reveal to him who she was?
Maybe she had a valid reason, maybe she thought she did when she didn't. Abraham kept the secret of his true relationship with Sarah twice, and on one of those occasions the king who took her as his own was quite distraught about the deception. If Abraham had been honest with him, perhaps the whole situation wouldn't have happened. Or perhaps he would have been killed.
Maybe Tamar had similar reasons. If she had been honest, maybe everything would have been fine. Or maybe it would have been even worse.
Without there being more scripture about the morality of the situation, can we reliably say that her secrecy was the right thing to do? It happened, and these other things happened. If I remember correctly, even the morality of Judah having impregnated her isn't discussed; it's left to the reader to decide whether it was right or wrong (based on other scripture).
Actually, I will contend that Scripture TELLS us why, and history bears out the result.
Judah had FAILED to 'walk in obedience.' Tamar realized (it says so!) that he wasn't going to "do the right thing" and give his third and final son to her, so she took action. (We're not told - but I SUSPECT it was done prayerfully!)
Result: Judah GOT it, "She is more RIGHTEOUS [torah-obedient] than I." I like to say, he 'manned up!'
He CONTINUED that process thereafter, in Genesis chapter 44.
And, as a further result, finally became worthy to be what he was supposed to be: a patriarch worthy of being the sire of kings, and ultimately the Meshiach.
PS> And, BTW... [decide for yourself how this relates to the topic!]
Scripture tells us that was the ONLY time he 'slept with her'. BUT, it's also clear that the offspring, in the line of David, and then HaMashiach, was not a 'mamzer' (offspring from a forbidden relationship).
Scripture tells us that was the ONLY time he 'slept with her'. BUT, it's also clear that the offspring, in the line of David, and then HaMashiach, was not a 'mamzer' (offspring from a forbidden relationship).
Gen 38: And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him.
They were not called one flesh nor were they cleaving. Hmmm. Right or wrong, it happened but the question still is why were they not married if sex equals marriage? There was no "purchase and sale" agreement. Side bar question: Is there sin here, why or why not?
(hope I am not too late to the discussion, I haven't read 30 pages)
They were not called one flesh nor were they cleaving. Hmmm. Right or wrong, it happened but the question still is why were they not married if sex equals marriage? There was no "purchase and sale" agreement. Side bar question: Is there sin here, why or why not?
(hope I am not too late to the discussion, I haven't read 30 pages)
What makes you think these were instances of sex outside of marriage? Just because these men were bad husbands does meant they hadn’t incurred the obligations and responsibilities of husbands.
People, why are we looking for validation in descriptive narratives that aren’t even identified as being morally upright or not?
These passages aren’t about forming one flesh, all of them seem to involve at least one person who was acting unrighteously, and they don’t contain commentary on what the deeper meaning or significance of the story is.
These are not passages that any solid conclusions can be drawn from, certainly not in the face of passages that directly address the topic.
These passages aren’t about forming one flesh, all of them seem to involve at least one person who was acting unrighteously, and they don’t contain commentary on what the deeper meaning or significance of the story is.
These are not passages that any solid conclusions can be drawn from, certainly not in the face of passages that directly address the topic.
Never assume that Tamar (or anyone else in scripture) actually did the best thing. What is recorded is what they did. What they did might have been a mistake.
Tamar may not have needed to have any secrecy - she might just have been scared.
There might have been far better ways to solve this problem - Tamar might have chosen a really stupid option that just happened to work out ok (and only just, she barely escaped being killed).
This is another reason we shouldn't analyse it too closely.
She still was not his wife.