1: When does marriage begin? - Sex

[The Revolting Man]

Also, just for the record, the “marriage” or one flesh status of Adam and Eve was stated at the point that God joined them. There is nothing in the language to indicate that they had sex in Chapter 2. Merely that they were brought together by God, Adam swore/covenanted with her (This is now bone of my bone flesh of my flesh) and cleaved to her. The cleaving here is not sex but more along the lines of pulling her close or taking her hand indicating that he is assuming responsibility for her. At this point the man (Adam) and his wife (ishshah) are naked and are not ashamed (a natural state at that point). Sex cannot be proven till after the expulsion from the garden to my knowledge. (And that’s even including all of my extra biblical studying)

Let's take this whole paragraph and insert "man and harlot" everywhere that was referring to Adam and Eve and see how it sounds. I wonder if it will still make sense. Come on man, one flesh isn't sex? It's a firm handshake formalizing a business deal? A hug, signifying an economic stewardship and an fiduciary responsibility? It sounds like a BBC documentary. One flesh is just what it sounds like, it's something you can do with a whore and something you would really want to do but have to be disciplined about. Hugs and firm handshakes do not fall in to that category.

 

[Asforme&myhouse]

I'm not sure I agree with your presentation and will have to do more research on 1.) size of sperm vs. blood cell 2.) does sperm carry blood 3.) if the sperm doesn't carry blood, but only the DNA marker to produce/manufacture blood once it is united with the egg 4.) any seed of any sort contains all components for new life once germanation begins (conception) 5.) I don't see any scientific reason for semen or sperm NOT to be associated with blood

I have a book Why The Hymen. I'll have to dig it out and reread. I'm positive some of what I've presented comes from that book.

Male ejeculate is made up of sperm cells and seminal fluid, no blood in the mix (unless the man’s reproductive organs are damaged and blood is somehow leaking into and contaminating the seed, but this isn’t the case under normal circumstances).

Blood is comprised of red blood cells and different types of white blood cells that are called granulocytes (neutrophils, eosinophils, and basophils), monocytes, and lymphocytes (T cells and B cells).

Never the twain shall meet.

 

[Keith Martin]

Let's take this whole paragraph and insert "man and harlot" everywhere that was referring to Adam and Eve and see how it sounds. I wonder if it will still make sense. Come on man, one flesh isn't sex? It's a firm handshake formalizing a business deal? A hug, signifying an economic stewardship and an fiduciary responsibility? It sounds like a BBC documentary. One flesh is just what it sounds like, it's something you can do with a whore and something you would really want to do but have to be disciplined about. Hugs and firm handshakes do not fall in to that category.

Amen, @ZecAustin, and what we should all be remembering here is that there can be debate about which term we prefer to assign to the Hebrew/Greek words ("wife;" "woman;" etc.), but the more salient point is that it isn't about the nail, er, I mean, what her title was or what meaning we ascribe to her title. She was certainly defined in these Deuteronomy 22 verses as being the woman of someone other than the man with whom sex occurred. Keeping that in mind, we can even imagine referring to a betrothed woman as the 'wife' of her future husband, but if she were still a virgin, all that exists of the marriage is a promise to enter into a future union. Call her a fiance, a wife, the woman of the future husband, or whatever -- but the marriage itself would not be considered to have begun until after it was consummated (that's a fancy word for, "the sex has finally happened and the one-flesh status has been initiated).

Part of my impression about what is going on in this discussion is a combination of some folks going to a lot of effort to resist the obvious and other folks failing to recognize that the biases they've unconsciously carried into the discussion from a lifetime of religious programming are preventing them from leap-frogging over cognitive dissonance to discover what is a very simple truth: it doesn't matter that there are exceptions to The Rule about what God made clear is what seals a marriage; those exceptions further prove The Rule. As @ZecAustin so eloquently stated, we're not talking about a handshake or the signing of a form here. We're talking about a God-designed interaction that in His wisdom was God-intended to amount to a radical form of playing with fire, something that has life and death consequences and was not intended to be taken lightly. Only a virgin, or a highly inexperienced person (or, I will grant, possibly someone who's never gone without a condom) could possibly miss the fact that sexual intercourse was designed to be the most powerful interaction two human beings can engage in with each other. God designed that, and I'm going to assert something that I know will upset a lot of people who are attached to the notion that it bears some crucial meaning, but all this covenant stuff is just yet another attempt on the part of humans to assert their creativity in the matter of marriage, as if some ceremony or document-signing or promise on our weak-ass selves could ascend to even deserve to be compared to the activity God Himself endowed us with to seal the deal.

Again -- from an earlier point in this discussion -- Sex does not Equal Marriage. Marriage is an ongoing relationship, recognized by all but the most addled of the politically correct as a very distinctive type of relationship. Sex is an occasional activity that initiates (as in, starts) the marriage and occurs periodically during the course of the marriage, but Sex is not the Marriage itself.

And no amount of persuading angels to dance on the head of a pin about which specific English word is considered the best translation for one specific Hebrew or Greek word is going to have any relevant effect on the question of when marriage begins.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

What? Where did payment come in to this passage? I dealt with the woman thing. There was only one who was described as mastered. The verse 29 girl was a woman after the sex. No betrothal. The money had to be paid after the fact. The marriage was already formed. I can't believe I got sucked back in to this with you. I walk you to a marriage formed by nothing but sex and you Mr. Magoo the damn thing. There is no caveat in that passage about the woman not being his wife. It's all positive and definite. I believe you are referring to Exodus 22:17 but again you should have started a verse earlier; "And if a man entices a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." That's no intent, that's no covenant. That's some freaky deaky on the sneaky sneaky. And it's a marriage. Yes, the if the father refuses to giver her then God gives a work around but the man "has endowed her to be his wife." How are we still talking about this? We now have two separate verses with marriage formed solely by sex. Two. How do we pretend this isn't a thing now?

If a man finds a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
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.

She’s a damsel when he finds her, then they have sex, and then he has to pay the damsel’s father, not his wife’s father. The passage says she’s still considered a damsel, not a wife until after he pays the money. Shall be is a future tense not a past or present tense. There’s no way this is a sex alone = marriage. It’s a sex + payment = marriage.

If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

This is another instance in the same passage that does not support sex alone = marriage. The ba’al ba’al ‘ed ishshah or mastered wife in the previous verses is just a red herring. It has no bearing on the betrothed damsel’s status. The betrothed damsel’s status is still considered as a wife and is listed as a wife belonging to the neighbor, not the damsel belonging to the neighbor. The rea ishshah is the same in both verses (Deut and Leviticus). The only difference between the two is the neighbors wife in Leviticus has been ba’aled or the man wouldn’t be considered to be defiled by her. So for the damsel to be considered a rea ishshah means that she has been made a wife even if she hasn’t been ba’aled. In this case its Covenant + money (betrothal) = marriage

Leviticus 18:20
Moreover thou shalt not lie carnally with thy neighbour’s wife, to defile thyself with her.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

If sex = marriage, and this damsel is not previously a wife because she hasn’t been ba’aled by the betrothing neighbor, then this other man could not have humbled his neighbors wife. According to the Leviticus 20 passage, a man that lies with a rea ishshah is committing adultery. Since there is nothing in the passage to make anyone think that she has become the second man’s wife, this is additional proof that sex alone does not equal marriage and you could commit adultery with a virgin if she belongs to another man. For which you would both be put to death just like in the Deuteronomy passage.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Come on man, one flesh isn't sex?

Genesis 29:13 & 14
And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidingsof Jacob his sisters son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things.
And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.

I guess all that embracing and kissing ended in a whoopsie!

Genesis 37:27
Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.

Maybe that’s why the brothers were so content! Post coital bliss!

Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh (one flesh) means that you are part of the family.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

At what point are you part of the body of Christ? At consumation, or betrothal? If its consumation, then we have no right to boldly enter the throne room without an intercessor because the “marriage” supper of the Lamb hasn’t happened.

@Keith Martin said that Sex is what initiates a marriage. I have seen where it can be what initiates a marriage, but have seen multiple instances where they are considered married without it, and seen instances where they weren’t considered married with it. And as I pointed out earlier, it is possible to commit adultery with a virgin if she is covenanted to another man.

 

[Keith Martin]

At what point are you part of the body of Christ? At consumation, or betrothal? If its consumation, then we have no right to boldly enter the throne room without an intercessor because the “marriage” supper of the Lamb hasn’t happened.

@Keith Martin said that Sex is what initiates a marriage. I have seen where it can be what initiates a marriage, but have seen multiple instances where they are considered married without it, and seen instances where they weren’t considered married with it. And as I pointed out earlier, it is possible to commit adultery with a virgin if she is covenanted to another man.

a. It's wise to avoid conflating discussions the doing of which fails to distinguish the difference between tangible earthly marriage and metaphorical "marriage". You could send yourself down a path in which you're arguing that "Sex" is "Christ".

b. Adultery and marriage are distinct issues that can concern each other, but that one can find examples where marital status affects determinations about adultery does not mean that adultery has any ability to define marriage itself, including when it begins. Remember, too, that whether the betrothed is a wife or a fiance or has a promise ring is not what determined the adultery status when one man takes the betrothed of another: she did not belong to him and was promised to belong to another, so it was a transgression on the part of one man toward another man; marital status (including pre-marital status) was relevant but not determinative, and its relevance toward adultery does not give one the right to reverse course and assert that adultery has relevance toward marriage.

c. see comment following this quote:

If sex = marriage, and this damsel is not previously a wife because she hasn’t been ba’aled by the betrothing neighbor, then this other man could not have humbled his neighbors wife. According to the Leviticus 20 passage, a man that lies with a rea ishshah is committing adultery. Since there is nothing in the passage to make anyone think that she has become the second man’s wife, this is additional proof that sex alone does not equal marriage and you could commit adultery with a virgin if she belongs to another man. For which you would both be put to death just like in the Deuteronomy passage.

c. I've already addressed the logical and deductive reasons why the exact word attached to the pre-marital status of the damsel is in no way the salient concern in an issue of adultery separate from our discussion (in large part because the actual start of the marriage was still in the future when the adultery transgression took place), but, again -- and I say this to anyone else who is tempted to do it -- a HUGE distinction exists between the statement "Sex equals Marriage" and "Marriage begins once Sex has occurred." We are discussing the former and not the latter, and therefore when one argues against sex equaling marriage one has deflected true debate by setting up a false straw man argument. Misstating the proposition is a disruption of logic and reasoning, because changing "Marriage begins once Sex has occurred" to "Sex equals Marriage" is the semantic equivalent of stating that "Bread begins arise from its ingredients once yeast is added to the mix" is the same as "Yeast equals Bread."

 

[The Revolting Man]

There’s no way this is a sex alone = marriage. It’s a sex + payment = marriage.

So if a man walked up to you and handed you 50 shekels of silver would he be betrothed to your daughter? I don't think you would go there. The 50 shekels of silver needs some context. In this case it's sex. The silver had nothing to do with it. Everything else you said in this post is suspect because you conflated "woman" with "mastered" and the two are not necessarily the same thing. In this case "woman" is much better understood "female". And no matter what you do there is no way around the fact the "mastered woman" is in a different category than the betrothed virgin who is in a different category than the unbetrothed virgin. They just aren't the same thing.

If sex = marriage, and this damsel is not previously a wife because she hasn’t been ba’aled by the betrothing neighbor, then this other man could not have humbled his neighbors wife. According to the Leviticus 20 passage, a man that lies with a rea ishshah is committing adultery. Since there is nothing in the passage to make anyone think that she has become the second man’s wife, this is additional proof that sex alone does not equal marriage and you could commit adultery with a virgin if she belongs to another man. For which you would both be put to death just like in the Deuteronomy passage.

I'm not sure which virgin you're talking about here. The verse 24 virgin isn't an issue of adultery at all. Her sin is not crying out. The man is guilty of humbling his neighbor's female but this doesn't seem to be the same thing as adultery. As the verses you quote show, God is not shy about naming adultery when adultery is what He means. He didn't do so here. I think you actually hit on something in your next post so I will defer the rest of this to answer that one.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Genesis 29:13 & 14
And it came to pass, when Laban heard the tidingsof Jacob his sisters son, that he ran to meet him, and embraced him, and kissed him, and brought him to his house. And he told Laban all these things.
And Laban said to him, Surely thou art my bone and my flesh.

I guess all that embracing and kissing ended in a whoopsie!

Genesis 37:27
Come, and let us sell him to the Ishmeelites, and let not our hand be upon him; for he is our brother and our flesh. And his brethren were content.

Maybe that’s why the brothers were so content! Post coital bliss!

Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh (one flesh) means that you are part of the family.

I appreciate the attempt at levity but I am forced to point out that while there may be a lot of flesh in these verses there is not one "one flesh". Cool points for the sense of humor but I can't award any debate points for conflating brothers and uncles with women you're having sex with. This wasn't the post I meant when I said you had hit on something by the way.

 

[rejoicinghandmaid]

Male ejeculate is made up of sperm cells and seminal fluid, no blood in the mix (unless the man’s reproductive organs are damaged and blood is somehow leaking into and contaminating the seed, but this isn’t the case under normal circumstances).

Blood is comprised of red blood cells and different types of white blood cells that are called granulocytes (neutrophils, eosinophils, and basophils), monocytes, and lymphocytes (T cells and B cells).

Never the twain shall meet.

Well, I can tell I'm in over my head on this discussion. There's still questions rumbling in my pea brain on this topic, but I won't belabor the topic right now in respect to not wishing to further derail this thread. I'll find the book and see where I've remembered incorrectly or pull together what I'm thinking. Thanks @Asforme&myhouse.

 

[The Revolting Man]

At what point are you part of the body of Christ? At consumation, or betrothal? If its consumation, then we have no right to boldly enter the throne room without an intercessor because the “marriage” supper of the Lamb hasn’t happened.

@Keith Martin said that Sex is what initiates a marriage. I have seen where it can be what initiates a marriage, but have seen multiple instances where they are considered married without it, and seen instances where they weren’t considered married with it. And as I pointed out earlier, it is possible to commit adultery with a virgin if she is covenanted to another man.

Now you've put your finger on it because I think we can answer this pretty easily. We're all going to the marriage supper of the Lamb. We're not there yet. We're going to presented as a spotless bride, we haven't been yet though. We are betrothed to Christ but we are not yet one with Him. We are not married to Christ yet. Like the parable of the wise and foolish virgins we are still waiting for the bridegroom and if marriage is metaphor (and it is) this metaphor dovetails quite nicely with my explanation of Deuteronomy 22:22-29.

It's an excellent question though and the exact right one to ask. We are not as we will be when we are in the presence of our King. We are betrothed damsels. We are promised but we are not yet one.

 

[rockfox]

What? Where did payment come in to this passage? I dealt with the woman thing. There was only one who was described as mastered. The verse 29 girl was a woman after the sex. No betrothal. The money had to be paid after the fact. The marriage was already formed. I can't believe I got sucked back in to this with you. I walk you to a marriage formed by nothing but sex and you Mr. Magoo the damn thing. There is no caveat in that passage about the woman not being his wife. It's all positive and definite. I believe you are referring to Exodus 22:17 but again you should have started a verse earlier; "And if a man entices a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." That's no intent, that's no covenant. That's some freaky deaky on the sneaky sneaky. And it's a marriage. Yes, the if the father refuses to giver her then God gives a work around but the man "has endowed her to be his wife." How are we still talking about this? We now have two separate verses with marriage formed solely by sex. Two. How do we pretend this isn't a thing now?

It never says in that verse that sex formed the marriage. It says since he had sex with her he must make her his wife.

"her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife"

"he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife."

shall be his wife
to be his wife

Future tense, and only after paying the dowry; just as in regular marriage. He must pay a dowry to make her his wife.

Part of my impression about what is going on in this discussion is a combination of some folks going to a lot of effort to resist the obvious and other folks failing to recognize that the biases they've unconsciously carried into the discussion from a lifetime of religious programming are preventing them from leap-frogging over cognitive dissonance to discover what is a very simple truth: it doesn't matter that there are exceptions to The Rule about what God made clear is what seals a marriage; those exceptions further prove The Rule.

A rule nowhere stated. It's not obvious, you have to read an understanding into the passage to get it. I'm not arguing the unconscious bias of my time, but the historic practice which matches the Biblical text.

I find it funny that everyone who argues for this understanding is strangely silent about the need for a dowry in Biblical marriage. The textual and historical basis for that is far stronger that sex forms marriage.

 

[FollowingHim]

Well, I can tell I'm in over my head on this discussion. There's still questions rumbling in my pea brain on this topic, but I won't belabor the topic right now in respect to not wishing to further derail this thread. I'll find the book and see where I've remembered incorrectly or pull together what I'm thinking. Thanks @Asforme&myhouse.

Yes, there's really no argument on this point, it's basic biology. There are a lot of good other points to make, just forget this particular one, you've simply misunderstood it, I expect due to misapplying the common wording of "bloodlines" and so forth to refer to people who are related to each other and thinking it meant something it did not. There's no more blood in semen than there is in milk. They're just completely different things.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Future tense, and only after paying the dowry; just as in regular marriage. He must pay a dowry to make her his wife.

Incorrect. He had to pay the dowry because he made her his wife without permission. Just because you're sneaky doesn't mean there's not a dowry. But the marriage was unavoidable after the sex. He had to pay a dowry and he had to make her his wife because he had sex with her. As I pointed out earlier, men running around throwing 50 shekels of silver at fathers' wouldn't automatically make the married. It would make them broke, without the sex those shekels are just a very expensive gesture.

I find it funny that everyone who argues for this understanding is strangely silent about the need for a dowry in Biblical marriage. The textual and historical basis for that is far stronger that sex forms marriage.

And where is the need for a dowry in a normal situation stated? I think you can imply that it was something the father could expect but nowhere in the normal course of a marriage is said that a dowry must be paid. This is another one of those things like the covenant that we have built much greater than God did, although the dowry has more validity to it than the covenant at least. It is however explicitly said that a man who seduces a virgin has endowed her to be his wife. So I think you may be indulging in a little bit of confirmation bias.

 

[rockfox]

He had to pay the dowry because he made her his wife without permission.

It never says he made her his wife. Wife is not brought up until dowry is mentioned. "he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife." Pay dowry, then she's your wife.

But the marriage was unavoidable after the sex.

Not true, the father was able to deny the marriage. Furthermore it doesn't say the father could force them to divorce if he didn't approve, or force the man to write divorce papers, but "refuses to give her to him". Marriage entails leave AND cleave. No leave (give her to him) no marriage. This passage is in perfect harmony with Gen 2:24 and not at all consistent with the idea that having sex magically means you're not married.

men running around throwing 50 shekels of silver at fathers' wouldn't automatically make the married.

Exactly, he must have the father's permission. So too does running around having sex with women automatically make them married. He must have the father's permission. You've just made my argument for me.

And where is the need for a dowry in a normal situation stated?

"he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." That verse implies what we also know from history: dowry was part of the normal marriage practice. It was for a thousand or more years before that and several thousand years after as well. Do a word search on dowry, it's all over the Bible.

You have to read sex forms marriage into the passage. But dowry, it's just there, plain as day. But no where does scripture ever say, "if you have sex with someone, you're now married to them".

 

[Keith Martin]

Now you've put your finger on it because I think we can answer this pretty easily. We're all going to the marriage supper of the Lamb. We're not there yet. We're going to presented as a spotless bride, we haven't been yet though. We are betrothed to Christ but we are not yet one with Him. We are not married to Christ yet. Like the parable of the wise and foolish virgins we are still waiting for the bridegroom and if marriage is metaphor (and it is) this metaphor dovetails quite nicely with my explanation of Deuteronomy 22:22-29.

It's an excellent question though and the exact right one to ask. We are not as we will be when we are in the presence of our King. We are betrothed damsels. We are promised but we are not yet one.

@ZecAustin, thank you for this: you have been far more eloquent than I was.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is pretty much just one ridiculous assertion after another. Let's run down the list shall we?

It never says he made her his wife. Wife is not brought up until dowry is mentioned. "he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife." Pay dowry, then she's your wife.

Exodus 22:16 states it a little more clearly, "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife." I'll deal with verse 17 in a moment but let's look at 16 first. Actually there's nothing to look at. A man had sex with a virgin and endowed her to be his wife. There was no intent, no covenant and no money. At this point this debate should be over. A man had sex with an eligible woman and a "marriage" was formed. Let's all move on to headcovering.

Now I know verse 17 is looming over our heads but it shouldn't be, because the marriage is already formed. If the father "utterly refuse to give her to him" then money according to the price of virgins should be paid. But according to this passage if the father didn't "utterly refuse" and the money weren't paid the marriage would still be formed. The money is not connected to the actual marriage in this passage at all. Now we have to reconcile this passage to Deuteronomy 22 and your way doesn't. Mine does. Do you think that Exodus and Deuteronomy contradict each other? I don't.

Marriage entails leave AND cleave. No leave (give her to him) no marriage. This passage is in perfect harmony with Gen 2:24 and not at all consistent with the idea that having sex magically means you're not married.

What? Genesis 2:24 "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother..." This doesn't apply to the woman sir.

Exactly, he must have the father's permission. So too does running around having sex with women automatically make them married. He must have the father's permission. You've just made my argument for me.

I'll end this debate one more time for you. Turn with me if you will to Deuteronomy 21:12. I don't like to use this one too much because the desperate will point out two things, one of which isn't even true but since we're dealing with ridiculous assertions let's do it. The situation is that Israel has gone to war and taken their enemies captive. The passage reads, "and seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her that thou wouldst have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house; and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails and she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife."

Now we will notice a number of things here, first off I think we can take it as settled that this young woman's father did not freely consent to this, neither was he given any money. Rather she was taken violently, most likely with all of her family's goods, and there is a chance (but not the certainty, the passage does not reference this) that her father was killed. And yet, somehow, when the man goes in to her (this is actually described in this passage as being her husband) she is his wife.

We should all be arguing about something else now. A marriage was formed by sex, without consent or paternal permission. You could make the barest, the thinnest and frankly a pretty intellectually dishonest argument that the man might have made some kind of covenant but if you do I'm going to laugh at you.

You have to read sex forms marriage into the passage. But dowry, it's just there, plain as day. But no where does scripture ever say, "if you have sex with someone, you're now married to them".

So I would like to give you the chance to retract this statement if you would like. I think we've already shown on at least two occasions that the dowry is not connected to the marriage directly and that marriage would be formed without it. I can never figure out why the "covenant" side of this debate is so rabid in the face of all evidence to the contrary? I'm assuming that they're not wanting to have "free sex". I don't think anyone here is advocating that sex is disconnected with marriage. I hope know is trying to say that sex is no more unique to marriage than monetary payments are. If so then that is the most ridiculous assertion of all of them.

I suspect it has something to do with patriarchs wanting to protect the authority of fathers and I understand that. But an earthly father's authority is limited. It gets transferred to the husband and as we've shown that doesn't always need the father's consent. I have to admit that I am tired of this argument once again. I've had it a number of times now and I don't know that I've ever once changed someone's mind. It is just too emotional an issue for most men. But I don't see any way to resolve all of the passages any differently. Sex equals marriage is the only way that everything form the New Testament and the Old are harmonized. I Corinthians 6:16 should have ended this for us before it even started, "What? know you not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." What is left to say after that? How do you argue against that? I don't think you can.

 

[FollowingHim]

I must say I get rather tired of this discussion, I've seen it go round and round the same circles for so many years and it just never gets anywhere. But for me, it's become quite simple.

If you start sleeping with a woman, consider her your wife.
If she's your wife, you should make a covenant to her to give her security.
I really don't care whether she technically became your "wife" when you slept with her, or when you covenanted with her. Just do both. The first as often as possible.

Get her father's permission if he's alive. If he says no, don't sleep with her. If you slept with her anyway, consider her your wife and pray for forgiveness for putting your physical desires ahead of doing the right thing.

The hypothetical can work you into knots. But at a practical level, it mostly becomes irrelevant.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I must say I get rather tired of this discussion, I've seen it go round and round the same circles for so many years and it just never gets anywhere. But for me, it's become quite simple.

If you start sleeping with a woman, consider her your wife.
If she's your wife, you should make a covenant to her to give her security.
I really don't care whether she technically became your "wife" when you slept with her, or when you covenanted with her. Just do both. The first as often as possible.

Get her father's permission if he's alive. If he says no, don't sleep with her. If you slept with her anyway, consider her your wife and pray for forgiveness for putting your physical desires ahead of doing the right thing.

The hypothetical can work you into knots. But at a practical level, it mostly becomes irrelevant.

Very true and probably the right note to end this one on. Although I'd really rather end it on some childish victory taunt.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I appreciate the attempt at levity but I am forced to point out that while there may be a lot of flesh in these verses there is not one "one flesh". Cool points for the sense of humor but I can't award any debate points for conflating brothers and uncles with women you're having sex with. This wasn't the post I meant when I said you had hit on something by the way.

The one flesh of Matthew 19 is a partial quote from Adam in his marriage before God. The actual quote is that Eve would be bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Laban’s use of this phrase indicates that the common understanding of one flesh was not sex but family.