YEHSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!'
-
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.
1: When does marriage begin? - Sex
- Thread starter FollowingHim
- Start date
Aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh! That's your position barely reworded. No. If you have sex with someone you have either created a one flesh relationship or you've committed adultery or something worse. There is no intent. There is no covenant. Those things aren't in there anywhere. What is in there is a command to not be one flesh with a harlot. Surely you can't claim there was intent or a covenant involved there. But it's the exact phrase Christ used to quote the Genesis marriage passage. That's it. It's over. Finito. Caput. We can't add to scripture and intent and covenant would most definitely have to be added to what scripture has to say about marriage.
I freely admit to having a both juvenile and puerile mind but the proximity of the words covered, nakedness and skirt to the phrase "time of love" leaves me fairly confident that they weren't going to an ice cream social or even a notary public.
Yes, of course, I knew you would reference the "virgin" aspect involving the breaking of the hymen, producing an issue of blood, and a demonstration of such being a requirement in OT and I think NT also that was proof and evidence for the bride of her virginity--actually providing a layer of protection should the bridegroom ever decide he wanted out and would attempt to use that as his argument against the wife of his youth.
However, taking my question to a deeper level involves the science of the father's blood being what the offspring have because the sperm carries the blood and DNA of the father to the egg. Regardless of whether conception occurs in sexual intercourse, blood has still entered the picture via the sperm and thus the idea of blood covenant cannot be ruled out. What do you think?
Is it actual “blood” or the just the dna markers to make the blood? The father doesn’t necessarily determine the blood type for a baby. Both parents contribute the dna markers. There are several different options for blood types (AA or AO, BB or BO, AB, OO), it’s not like male and female genes. For example, if my husbands blood type was OO and mine was AO and he contributed one of his Os and I contributed my A the baby would be AO blood type like me.
It does apply because the passage states she is his wife; even though they've not yet had sex. It also establishes dowry as part of forming marriage, which we also see elsewhere in the Bible.
Yet for some odd reason I never see anyone advocating you're not married unless you paid a dowry for her.
There is no blood in sperm. Each sperm cell is far smaller than a single blood cell, it cannot carry blood.
In scripture, sperm / semen is referred to by it's own name - "seed" - completely separately to referring to blood.
I don't see any scriptural or scientific reason to associate blood with semen or sperm.
My own personal opinion, prior to seeing these other posts, was that it wouldn’t count as a blood covenant. I’m not entirely sure that taking virginity necessarily constitutes a blood covenant although it seems the most plausible. The instances that I recall an actual blood covenant in Scripture utilized the shedding of blood to formally bind a covenant. Not that a covenant was automatically formed because blood was shed.
Help me out, I don't see where it says she's his wife in this passage. I see that it refers to the man as "husband" but that just means man right? It basically says that she is betrothed to a man. I didn't see where it identified them as being one flesh.
Verse 23&24. He hath humbled his neighbors wife
Yes, I'm aware of this; however, the sperm carries the father's blood to the egg. There isn't just a DNA marker in that sperm, there is blood. The blood type being carried by the sperm is immaterial to this arguement.
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.
@Verifyveritas76 and @rockfox I couldn't quote you both so I had to mention you. Here you go, why the woman in Deuteronomy 22:24 is not married.
The use of the word "woman" (translated wife) in verse 24 is admittedly problematic for me at first glance, but a quick look at a lexicon and the surrounding verses resolves the issues.
We have to start in verse 22 and read through verse 29. In this passage we see three different categories of female. We have the "mastered woman" of verse 22; the virgin, a betrothed damsel of verses 23-27 who is described in verse 24 as a "woman" and the unbetrothed damsel of verses 28-29. All three of them are treated differently.
The "mastered woman", what we think of as being married is a very simple case. There are no extenuating circumstances for her. If she is found laying with a man not her husband then they both die. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are.
The damsel that is a virgin and betrothed has some different rules. If she doesn't try to resist (I am simplifying the narrative obviously) then she is stoned, but her crime isn't listed as adultery. It simply sates that she is being stoned because she didn't cry out. And the man likewise is stoned but his transgression is listed as "humbling his neighbor's wife" (and this is where the female is described as the word that gets translated "wife" here but does not have the further description of being a mastered woman that we see in verse 22). It very specifically is not listed as adultery. Neither individual is listed as being guilty of adultery. Their crimes are very clearly identified as "she cried not" and "he hath humbled his neighbor's wife (woman, probably best translated female here)". There seems to be no actual adultery in this instance which would make it hard to describe the woman as having been "married".
Then there is the unbetrothed damsel. She is operating on yet a third set of rules. It doesn't really matter what the circumstances were in this instance, the female is described as being "humbled" (the same phrase used to describe what happened to the betrothed virgin) and she is now the man's wife. The sex in this case undeniably did form a "marriage" as the man is disallowed from ever divorcing a woman taken this way. Let me be clear, sex DEFINITELY DOES form a marriage, no matter what the intent was or if there was a covenant or not. This verse is iron clad. I don't know how anyone keeps arguing after this one.
So clearly the betrothed virgin has her foot in both worlds still. She is not yet a "mastered woman" (what we called married) as the female in verse 22, but she is obviously in a different category than the female in verses 28-29. I submit that she is not in a one flesh relationship nor is she mastered as is clearly shown by the differences between her and the mastered woman in verse 22. Therefore this passage does not support the idea of marriage formed separate from sex but rather seems to reinforce the idea, even a betrothed woman (who would presumably be under a covenant) isn't of the same status as a mastered woman who may have never been betrothed but could have been taken in the field against her will. This isn't even addressed. The betrothal or covenant (is this is indeed a sighting of that long sought creature) seems to affect the situation far less than the sex act and in fact may only be important so far as it prophesies the sex act.
So I guess I should have stated myself a little more clearly. Are you sure this woman in verse 24 is in a one flesh relationship? I don't think she is. Remember that one flesh is the term Christ uses to describe what we call marriage. It's the term the Genesis account uses as well. Taken as a whole I think Deuteronomy 22:22-29 seems to strengthen the idea that marriage begins with sex. It certainly doesn't do anything to disprove it.
The use of the word "woman" (translated wife) in verse 24 is admittedly problematic for me at first glance, but a quick look at a lexicon and the surrounding verses resolves the issues.
We have to start in verse 22 and read through verse 29. In this passage we see three different categories of female. We have the "mastered woman" of verse 22; the virgin, a betrothed damsel of verses 23-27 who is described in verse 24 as a "woman" and the unbetrothed damsel of verses 28-29. All three of them are treated differently.
The "mastered woman", what we think of as being married is a very simple case. There are no extenuating circumstances for her. If she is found laying with a man not her husband then they both die. It doesn't matter what the circumstances are.
The damsel that is a virgin and betrothed has some different rules. If she doesn't try to resist (I am simplifying the narrative obviously) then she is stoned, but her crime isn't listed as adultery. It simply sates that she is being stoned because she didn't cry out. And the man likewise is stoned but his transgression is listed as "humbling his neighbor's wife" (and this is where the female is described as the word that gets translated "wife" here but does not have the further description of being a mastered woman that we see in verse 22). It very specifically is not listed as adultery. Neither individual is listed as being guilty of adultery. Their crimes are very clearly identified as "she cried not" and "he hath humbled his neighbor's wife (woman, probably best translated female here)". There seems to be no actual adultery in this instance which would make it hard to describe the woman as having been "married".
Then there is the unbetrothed damsel. She is operating on yet a third set of rules. It doesn't really matter what the circumstances were in this instance, the female is described as being "humbled" (the same phrase used to describe what happened to the betrothed virgin) and she is now the man's wife. The sex in this case undeniably did form a "marriage" as the man is disallowed from ever divorcing a woman taken this way. Let me be clear, sex DEFINITELY DOES form a marriage, no matter what the intent was or if there was a covenant or not. This verse is iron clad. I don't know how anyone keeps arguing after this one.
So clearly the betrothed virgin has her foot in both worlds still. She is not yet a "mastered woman" (what we called married) as the female in verse 22, but she is obviously in a different category than the female in verses 28-29. I submit that she is not in a one flesh relationship nor is she mastered as is clearly shown by the differences between her and the mastered woman in verse 22. Therefore this passage does not support the idea of marriage formed separate from sex but rather seems to reinforce the idea, even a betrothed woman (who would presumably be under a covenant) isn't of the same status as a mastered woman who may have never been betrothed but could have been taken in the field against her will. This isn't even addressed. The betrothal or covenant (is this is indeed a sighting of that long sought creature) seems to affect the situation far less than the sex act and in fact may only be important so far as it prophesies the sex act.
So I guess I should have stated myself a little more clearly. Are you sure this woman in verse 24 is in a one flesh relationship? I don't think she is. Remember that one flesh is the term Christ uses to describe what we call marriage. It's the term the Genesis account uses as well. Taken as a whole I think Deuteronomy 22:22-29 seems to strengthen the idea that marriage begins with sex. It certainly doesn't do anything to disprove it.
@ZecAustin --that was quite a treatise! Good job of study and breaking it down.
This falls apart though because the woman in vers 24 is the rea ishshah (neighbors wife) just as the woman in verse 29 is the seducer’s ishshah and the woman in verse 30 is ab ishshah (the fathers wife). All three of them are wives, one of them through betrothal which would include payment but no sex yet, one of them through sex and payment, and one of them presumably through sex and payment or betrothal, sex and payment.
Sex alone in this passage does not equal marriage and sex alone with a betrothed woman equals death for the man just as sex with a married woman does. The sex alone with the betrothed woman does not equal marriage in either case and even in the case of the unbetrothed woman it still does not equal marriage until the money is paid. There’s another passage that basically states that the father can refuse to give her to him in marriage and he still has to pay the money, still not equaling marriage through sex alone. And the seducer only has to marry her and fork over the money if they are found.
Sex alone in this passage does not equal marriage and sex alone with a betrothed woman equals death for the man just as sex with a married woman does. The sex alone with the betrothed woman does not equal marriage in either case and even in the case of the unbetrothed woman it still does not equal marriage until the money is paid. There’s another passage that basically states that the father can refuse to give her to him in marriage and he still has to pay the money, still not equaling marriage through sex alone. And the seducer only has to marry her and fork over the money if they are found.
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)
Doing some study on covering the nakedness and ran across this verse
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour’s wife, (rea ishshah) the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 20:10
And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his
neighbour’s wife, (rea ishshah) the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
Oh lord VV, the one flesh happens with the harlot. Is God joining them too?
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?