• 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.

Exodus 22:16-17: "pre-marital sex" = the beginning of marriage?

Yan said:
Moses didn't say anything. And he's very detailed.
Click to expand...
Adultery does not end a marriage and sex does not automatically start one either.
A daughter is in her fathers protection until he sees fit to relinquish it to another.

If you take a ride on my horse, it is still my horse and I will chase you down and bring it back, regardless of how willingly she rode off with you.

Theft is theft...
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Adultery does not end a marriage and sex does not automatically start one either.
A daughter is in her fathers protection until he sees fit to relinquish it to another.

If you take a ride on my horse, it is still my horse and I will chase you down and bring it back, regardless of how willingly she rode off with you.

Theft is theft...
Click to expand...
I’d love to finally see the Biblical case made for this claim. I keep getting told I will be but then no one ever makes good. The warble about Numbers 30, I show them they’re wrong, then they mewl about the bride price and I show them they’ve wrong and then I get called names and the poor little guy storms off in a huff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yan
Man_in_the_Middle said:
Females seem to be designed by God to be able to make the best of whatever has happened. This is why war brides simply move on. Their allegiance changes to those they are now with. This is not in any way to demean them. This, I believe, is for preservation of life. If women were like men, they could never be trusted and would have to be killed in war instead.
Click to expand...
This is based on evolutionary psychology. Even if evolutionism is true, I don't believe that the mind stores memories of past times.

I don't feel these instincts in myself either.
 
Yan said:
This is based on evolutionary psychology. Even if evolutionism is true, I don't believe that the mind stores memories of past times.

I don't feel these instincts in myself either.
Click to expand...
I said that females seem to be designed by God this way. I am not hearkening to evolutionary anything.... I am pointing to history and what has happened over and over again since recorded history began to be recorded.

I believe that God gave men and women their natures and while we may not individually feel a certain way, I believe that we are still painted with the same brush to one extent or another...
 
The Revolting Man said:
I’d love to finally see the Biblical case made for this claim. I keep getting told I will be but then no one ever makes good. The warble about Numbers 30, I show them they’re wrong, then they mewl about the bride price and I show them they’ve wrong and then I get called names and the poor little guy storms off in a huff.
Click to expand...
You are too toxic to teach... You may pick it up from me by osmosis someday in the future but I am choosing not to work directly with you....
 
Man_in_the_Middle said:
I said that females seem to be designed by God this way. I am not hearkening to evolutionary anything.... I am pointing to history and what has happened over and over again since recorded history began to be recorded.

I believe that God gave men and women their natures and while we may not individually feel a certain way, I believe that we are still painted with the same brush to one extent or another...
Click to expand...
Why would God have designed women to be like this when there was no war in Eden?

The fact that most women are a certain way does not mean that God created them like that. Their corrupted minds chose to be that way.
In Genesis 6, it is said that the intentions of men's hearts were evil; God certainly did not make these people to be like that.

In Genesis 3, it is said that the serpent would live in enmity with the woman. Maybe these "instincts" are caused by Satan.
 
Last edited:
Yan said:
Why would God have designed women to be like this when there was no war in Eden?

The fact that most women are a certain way does not mean that God created them like that. Their corrupted minds chose to be that way.
In Genesis 6, it is said that the intentions of men's hearts were evil; God certainly did not make these people to be like that.

In Genesis 3, it is said that the serpent would live in enmity with the woman. Maybe these "instincts" are caused by Satan.
Click to expand...
Are you still talking about the war bride being less bothered by the situation than a man would?
 
NBTX11 said:
I understand all of this. I was trying to get the sex is marriage crowd to explain to me how a woman forced into sex, taking her virginity, is married to that man. So far I’ve heard no explanation.
Click to expand...
Whether "forced into sex" or "gladly jumping into bed with" sex - the instruction is still the same. Go to the father. When, of course the father says "gimme da money", and "no, you may not have my daughter" - my suspicion is he is given exactly 30 seconds to high tail it outta town before he gets shot. And he'd better go far outta town, because "his goose is cooked" in that neighborhood. And, of course it was rape and of course he won't go to the father and of course he must suffer the death penalty, making the innocent girl a widow, making her the same as a virgin in the eyes of everyone.
 
Loosely using the term marriage because marriage as the concept we understand, I don't remember actually being defined in the bible as we use it. It mostly being inferred as contextually a single word descriptor for exclusive sexual access, authority/headship, and ownership of a woman by an individual man, one man at a time. If sex = marriage then what about slaves and concubines? As they are not "ishah", they have their own descriptor words, sex with them however is also inferred as permissible or carry exceptions to the adultery punishment, but does not instantly raise them to "wife status". The only time we ever see sex = forced marriage is in relation to a seduced/raped virgin who is unbetrothed, which even that scenario contains a void option, that is only available to the father, meaning her change of status it is not immediate nor a requirement. The text is clear there is still an order of operations, he must pay the bride price first, then she shall be his wife. From this and other things we can infer the father is the final authority before she is transfered to her husband.

But how is this scenario handled when there is no authority? If the father is dead...does it become an exception? The scenario not an unrealistic one, especially during biblical times....must they be married? Who does he pay the bride price to? Because she is no longer under her fathers authority is she like a widow or divorced woman without a head who carries their own accountability and can make their own final decisions? Or as an orphan does she fall under the passages for orphans? Covered by The Most High directly, not to be trespassed against lest his wrath be reaped.

Then there's the virgin betrothed woman who CAN commit adultery, in her sexless status. So we know betrothal is a status at least equal to "marriage" because violation carries the same punishment as a consummated marriage and we know adultery as a classification is only ever applied once a woman belongs to a man and yet the exception of a betrothed slave cannot be ignored, which I would also note it does not state her as a virgin, nor does it state either parties intent or consent. see Lev. 19:20-22.

If we drop the term marriage entirely, what are we left with to define a womans status other than the one flesh description as an act which contextually refers to consummation every where I can remember, as the last step in the series of marital events, never mentioned without the series, except in the prostitute reference of Corinthians. Still lacking a solid definition for one flesh as its first use is both equal to "go into or knew her" but also the bearing of fruit from that action so it contains a double meaning, how is it to be applied to the unbetrothed from above?

Considering the woman at the well (where many infer without it being stated as to why she is attributed to having multiple husbands, is she a prostitue, a concubine, a divorced woman, or an adulteress?) she has had 5 husbands and the man she has now was not her husband, we have no way to know if this is infering a one flesh union with the 6th man or just a living situation and with no real clarification as to her current status or how she came to be in this situation, we can only infer from the response of the townsfolk and the disciples that she probably wasnt of a shameful status, which means probably not a prostitute or adulteress.

There are just so many holes and inconsistencies in the sex = instant marriage argument...
 
BiblicalLiteralist said:
But how is this scenario handled when there is no authority? If the father is dead...does it become an exception?
Click to expand...
From my understanding, her headship is transferred to her closest male adult relative.
We see this in the book of Esther, she was under the care of her uncle.

Good post, you’ve raised some serious questions.
I am reminded of King David’s daughter, Tamar, who expected to be her brother’s wife after her forced her. The marriage seemed to have been more of an expectation than a mandate that they were now married. David and Absolom apparently didn’t recognize the marriage. (This may have been addressed previously, I didn’t go back over the thread)
 
Also don't forget about Dinah, Genesis 34:1-19. Very specific example of sex not equaling marriage. I don't think a more specific example could be made, none of the parties involved seemed to think she was "married" post encounter. In the translated versions the word marriage is used many times through out these passages but if you go to the Hebrew there is only a single word which actually translates into marriage "chathan". Which is used in Genesis 34:9, “Intermarry with us (chathan); give your daughters to us and take our daughters for yourselves." From this perspective it would seem that marriage is more about the joining of families/alliances then about the transfer of authority, this looks to be the first use of the word as well. All the other words referencing marriage in the passage looks to refer to becoming a son in law, establishing as a father in law, through taking or giving of a daughter. There are 33 other uses of chathan most referring to the becoming or making of an inlaw. This definition of marriage might also help explain the difference between a concubine and a wife. One is an alliance and the other is not. This might also help to explain Bilhah and Zilpas concubine reference, they were non alliance relationships.
 
Last edited:
Since I'm in marriage = sex camp, I'm biased.

But following must be taken in account.

1) Bible doesn't have word for sex. It has phrases.

2) Sex is never mentioned directly. So if marriage start with sex, it will never be mentioned directly. This implies we have from phrases used infer that sex has happened and that sex starts marriage

3) There is no alternative mentioned "ceremony" which starts marriage which isn't sexual in nature. You can't provide verses since they don't exist.

4) Direct consequence of 3) is that believer can't even know is he even married since you don't know did you start marriage

5) Without sex = marriage and as consequence of 4) pastors have to invent when marriage start. Well, inventing theology is forbidden. Theology we are supposed to receive from Lord. For proof, find verses forbidding witchcraft, worshipping other gods....

6) Bible don't mention penis, vagina, semen, menstruation or anything connecting with sexual directly. Only in phrases. This supports point 2.

7) Woman can be wife and concubine. One word can have narrower meaning that another. For example, man/woman in comparison in person. Here man/woman has narrower meaning than person

8) Humans being humans like to celebrate. Well, marriage is good reason to throw party as any other. And it makes sense to formalize alliance by making them public

9) Also, making some ceremony public has advantage of giving security to women by implying she is not just being used for sex and that man will stay, especially if she gets pregnant.

10) Presence of such celebration doesn't make marriage. Even Catholic Church understand that keeping virginity after "marriage" in their church is valid reason for divorce. Maybe, because marriage didn't start for real.

11) Dinah is easily explained by 10 and 11. Somebody wanted to make Dinah "honest wife".

12) Seduction as method of getting married won't be looked favourably. Well, people can get married without asking for approval or with someone not approved, so method of seduction will have enemies

13) Seduction per se doesn't provide security. It's well understood by women are gatekeepers of sex and men are gatekeepers of relationship. Seduction doesn't by itself start relationship (one night stands as proof), and being single mother has sucked historically, so men who caused single motherhood wouldn't be welcomed

14) As consequence of 8, 9, 12 and 13 there will always be some societal push to connect marriage starting sex with something else which will cause confusion in some people to think marriage doesn't start with sex

15) Sex and especially children (consequence of sex, so sex again) are that makes marriage marriage. Any other human relationship type does implies relationship having non-sexual character, so why demand that marriage starts with something not essential to marriage (ie anything not sex)?

16) Anyone looking to be married while wanting to not have sex with their married partner is nutcase. This is nicely connecting with 15 which again points to centrality of sex in marriage and total insanity of trying to say that to start marriage requires something not sexual

Saying marriage doesn't start with sex is like saying employment doesn't start with arriving om first work day. Expanded in point 20

17) Humans do require more than just sex. Sex does make easier fulfilment of other needs. However, marriage does makes easier fulfilling other needs which enable sex. This matter because it makes easy to confuse other needs with centrality sex in marriage.

18) It would be shameful to want to get married just to have sex, so people will speak about something else just to avoid shame which will cause situation from 17

19) Since marriage as state blessed institution is totally screwed up, people will find replacement for marriage. Notice how sexual infidelity is so damaging for boyfriend/girlfriend situation which makes such relationships marriage replacement and also points toward point 15

20) Any sensible legal system understand that point of employment contact is exchange of receiving wages for some tasks done for employer. Singing contract isn't point, it's work done for wages. So if contract says work start on 20.5 and worker starts working at 19.5 any reasonable legal system will conclude that de facto contact has started at 19.5.

So if sex is point of marriage and couple starts boinking each other before "official ceremony" by what reasonable logic you can claim they are still unmarried? Well, they are already practicing what makes marriage marriage, so they must be married

21) Since sex is glue keeping marriage together, therefore stopping sex is same as advising divorce. Therefore advising sleeping couple not "officially married" to stop sleeping is in practice same as advising divorce. I thought Christianity is against divorce in general.
 
MemeFan said:
Since I'm in marriage = sex camp, I'm biased.

But following must be taken in account.

1) Bible doesn't have word for sex. It has phrases.

2) Sex is never mentioned directly. So if marriage start with sex, it will never be mentioned directly. This implies we have from phrases used infer that sex has happened and that sex starts marriage

3) There is no alternative mentioned "ceremony" which starts marriage which isn't sexual in nature. You can't provide verses since they don't exist.

4) Direct consequence of 3) is that believer can't even know is he even married since you don't know did you start marriage

5) Without sex = marriage and as consequence of 4) pastors have to invent when marriage start. Well, inventing theology is forbidden. Theology we are supposed to receive from Lord. For proof, find verses forbidding witchcraft, worshipping other gods....

6) Bible don't mention penis, vagina, semen, menstruation or anything connecting with sexual directly. Only in phrases. This supports point 2.

7) Woman can be wife and concubine. One word can have narrower meaning that another. For example, man/woman in comparison in person. Here man/woman has narrower meaning than person

8) Humans being humans like to celebrate. Well, marriage is good reason to throw party as any other. And it makes sense to formalize alliance by making them public

9) Also, making some ceremony public has advantage of giving security to women by implying she is not just being used for sex and that man will stay, especially if she gets pregnant.

10) Presence of such celebration doesn't make marriage. Even Catholic Church understand that keeping virginity after "marriage" in their church is valid reason for divorce. Maybe, because marriage didn't start for real.

11) Dinah is easily explained by 10 and 11. Somebody wanted to make Dinah "honest wife".

12) Seduction as method of getting married won't be looked favourably. Well, people can get married without asking for approval or with someone not approved, so method of seduction will have enemies

13) Seduction per se doesn't provide security. It's well understood by women are gatekeepers of sex and men are gatekeepers of relationship. Seduction doesn't by itself start relationship (one night stands as proof), and being single mother has sucked historically, so men who caused single motherhood wouldn't be welcomed

14) As consequence of 8, 9, 12 and 13 there will always be some societal push to connect marriage starting sex with something else which will cause confusion in some people to think marriage doesn't start with sex

15) Sex and especially children (consequence of sex, so sex again) are that makes marriage marriage. Any other human relationship type does implies relationship having non-sexual character, so why demand that marriage starts with something not essential to marriage (ie anything not sex)?

16) Anyone looking to be married while wanting to not have sex with their married partner is nutcase. This is nicely connecting with 15 which again points to centrality of sex in marriage and total insanity of trying to say that to start marriage requires something not sexual

Saying marriage doesn't start with sex is like saying employment doesn't start with arriving om first work day. Expanded in point 20

17) Humans do require more than just sex. Sex does make easier fulfilment of other needs. However, marriage does makes easier fulfilling other needs which enable sex. This matter because it makes easy to confuse other needs with centrality sex in marriage.

18) It would be shameful to want to get married just to have sex, so people will speak about something else just to avoid shame which will cause situation from 17

19) Since marriage as state blessed institution is totally screwed up, people will find replacement for marriage. Notice how sexual infidelity is so damaging for boyfriend/girlfriend situation which makes such relationships marriage replacement and also points toward point 15

20) Any sensible legal system understand that point of employment contact is exchange of receiving wages for some tasks done for employer. Singing contract isn't point, it's work done for wages. So if contract says work start on 20.5 and worker starts working at 19.5 any reasonable legal system will conclude that de facto contact has started at 19.5.

So if sex is point of marriage and couple starts boinking each other before "official ceremony" by what reasonable logic you can claim they are still unmarried? Well, they are already practicing what makes marriage marriage, so they must be married

21) Since sex is glue keeping marriage together, therefore stopping sex is same as advising divorce. Therefore advising sleeping couple not "officially married" to stop sleeping is in practice same as advising divorce. I thought Christianity is against divorce in general.
Click to expand...
To your point, if you were interested in taking a job, it would be proceeded with a formal agreement of some sort. After both parties agree to it, then you would create a start date. If you then showed up two weeks before your start date and declare that you work here now, you would be kicked off the premises and the agreement would never be... consummated as it were...

The agreement and the steps leading up to the proper start date are important so that when you actually start work, it is official.

Marriage is just the same... Trying to jump ahead of the formal process does not legitimize your actions.
 
BiblicalLiteralist said:
See my post above yours
Click to expand...
No, no. What does equal a marriage? If your sole example is of pagans trying to get Israel to intermarry, something they’re expressly forbidden from doing, then you have a very sparse Biblical support for marriage at all.

What forms a marriage according to the Bible? Why do we have to keep looking at stories to try and extrapolate possible practices that could be the way?

Why isn’t there any direct teaching on this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top