I'm sorry I got sidetracked and didn't get back here earlier, but I think I can shed some light on the objections that have been made.
However, to preface this, I've been an inactive member here for years, but I popped back in because I thought that some of the research I've done would be beneficial for y'all, because in all honesty, nothing is as it seems and we've been lied to all our lives about just about everything imaginable. I'm not considered a nice man by any stretch of the imagination, although if any of you know me (and there is a strong probability that some here know me IRL) you would argue that. Since there are no internet secrets from Google, anyone who was curious would quickly discover that I blog as the "
Artisanal Toad" and I cover topics that would probably offend many of the gentle folk here. I have one rule that I go by, and that is "What does Scripture actually say and what does it actually mean." I'm actually only a toad in the sense that I'm not a frog: there is zero chance kissing me will cause me to turn into prince charming.
Somebody said something about how one is perceived and the ability to communicate the message. Unfortunately, the intended audience has to be provoked to a bit of outrage before they take the time to discover that what "everybody knows" just ain't so. I'm actually quite entertaining when I do presentations, although it seems quite outrageous in the beginning.
That said, I do recommend that the more gentle folk avoid my blog because I discuss what are known as "red pill" issues from a Christian context according to what God's Word actually says and that is extremely uncomfortable for a lot of people. Some of you might find the header photos amusing, others would be offended (although they are all safe for work). However, any Christian who is willing to embrace God's design for marriage is OK in my book (
ceteris paribus) and we can probably agree to disagree on some of the more pungent details. Most all of you should be able to relate to the fact that it can be difficult to handle what the Bible actually says and doesn't say. Some folks just can't deal with it.
In response to the comments:
First keep in mind that the Commandment was given,
"Be fruitful and multiply." Commandments are implemented by laws, statutes and ordinances. We know that from a study of the Law, when God gave the 10 commandments and then beginning in Exodus 21 He gave Moses all the laws, statutes and ordinances to implement (interpret) them.
The Law of Marriage, at Genesis 2:24 states it is "For this reason" so we know it's to enable the first of God's commands to mankind, to be fruitful and multiply. Next it states the grant of authority is given to the man. That should be easy enough to deal with.
The confusion comes from the three elements of the Law, the "three shall's" and what the church did afterward during the period of around 400 AD when they usurped the authority of the man, denied that sex makes a couple married and claimed a ceremony was required and a couple was not married until the church blessed the union. In doing so they interpreted the "three shalls" to require a ceremony with consent in the cleaving part. For anyone who is interested in the history of how we got to where we are today, I highly recommend Brundage's "Law, Sex And Christian Society In Medieval Europe" and for those who balk at 700 page academic tomes, a more digestible work is Kevin MacDonald's monograph on
socially imposed monogamy in Western Europe (pdf). That said, let's look at the three elements of the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24).
-A man shall leave his father and mother. He is setting up his own house, he will no longer be under the authority of his father and mother. The “leaving” is a shift of authority that makes the man the head of his own house at the moment he takes a wife so this is a change in status, not necessarily a physical act. It is possible to marry and still live in one's father's house (although it isn't comfortable) but it is not possible to marry without becoming the head of the wife, the head of a new family. Thus, the first thing the Law does is establish the status of the man who is married.
-A man shall cleave to his wife. This is the physical act of consummation. The sex. Note that the woman is referred to as his wife. The marital covenant is initiated with this act (more on that later) and this act is known as "the act of marriage" and the "consummation" of the marriage for a reason. It is the
sine qua non of marriage.
-they shall become one flesh. Notice the text changes to indicate this is not an action of the man. Christ explained in Matthew 19 that the “become one flesh” aspect of the Law of Marriage (which He had just quoted) is an act of God, not an act of the man. It is generally accepted that God makes the two “become one flesh” at the moment of the consummation of the marriage, when the woman's hymen is ruptured, she bleeds and the covenant of marriage is initiated.
What we see is that of the three shalls, the only definite physical act is the husband having sex with his wife (shall cleave). She is his wife because they had sex and that's what the text refers to her as. They are married because with the act of intercourse the three elements of the law have been accomplished through the sole act of the man taking the woman's virginity. What this tells us is that ALL WOMEN ARE VIRGINS WHEN THEY MARRY. That little point keeps the linguistic problems at bay, because regardless of what ceremony might take place it's not a marriage if the woman is already married to the man she gave her virginity to.
However, nowhere is the issue of consent raised, which naturally causes some concern because the Law just said that to have sex with the woman was to marry her. It should come as no surprise that the issue of consent is settled in the Law with further instruction at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
The Exodus passage deals with a seduction- the woman consented but her father was not asked for his consent. They are married, but if the father desires, he can invoke his authority under Numbers 30:3-5 and annul his daughters marriage. He has that authority because she agreed to the act of marriage with the man and he can exercise his authority to annul her agreement (
“if the father absolutely refuses to give her”). Some have difficulty dealing with this and try to make the point that they are now married so how can the father then annul the marriage? It's because his daughter made the decision and expressed her agreement to marry somewhere along the line prior to the act that consummated her marriage (if she didn't agree she could have kept her clothes on and her legs crossed- but she chose not to and in doing so she indicated her agreement). That is the agreement with binding obligations (I think all will agree that marriage has binding obligations) that the father is annulling. The act of annulling that agreement is to annul the marriage that resulted from the agreement. In modern legal terms this is known as a "clawback" provision.
Believe it or not, if you consider the implications of what that says... that is the most wonderful news you've ever heard if you have an unintentional marriage. Because there is no time limit on when the father can annul her agreement, it is an agreement he can annul in the day he learns of either the agreement OR the binding obligations. The fact that he is making the decision to annul her agreement because it happened on his watch, even though she is now married, means that a young woman living in her fathers house under his authority, who enters into a marriage in ignorance, can have her father annul that marriage years later after she is no longer living in his house in her youth. Biblical clawback at its finest.
The Deuteronomy passage deals with the consent of the virgin. She was raped, they were discovered (discovery is the evidence she was raped and was not engaging in the act of marriage willingly) and thus she is his wife (
“they shall be married”). Her father has no authority to annul her marriage because she made no agreement he could annul. The man pays the father a very high price (fine?) and can never divorce her all the days of his life because he violated her. What the Deuteronomy passage does not consider is the issue of whether the father consented, it's irrelevant because she made no agreement.
This passage also points to situations in which a father can choose to have his daughter married to a man she absolutely does not want to marry. Look at Exodus 21:7 to see the extent of this:
"If a man sells his daughter as a female slave she is not to go free as the males do..." Notice the authority of the father to do that is assumed in the text. Why would a man buy a virgin? Keep reading until you get to the part about "conjugal rights" in verse 10 and the question is answered, which also answers the question of why the females were sold for life.
This brings us to the issue of the covenant. I can't put my finger on any particular point for the Davidic Covenant as to when the blood was shed (God called David a man of blood), but any other covenant you might care to mention was initiated with the shedding of blood. My favorite is the covenant with Phineas, but we're discussing the marriage covenant. Women, as designed by God, come with a hymen as standard equipment and it's designed to rupture and bleed when her marriage is consummated. (Was that clinical enough for y'all?) It is with the shedding of that blood that God causes them to become one flesh and initiates the marriage covenant. I don't really want to get into an argument over what a covenant *is* or *is not* but my opinion, based on what I've studied, is that a covenant is an agreement to which God is a party to the agreement. Some covenants are completely one-sided, with God vowing to do something, such as the Noahic Covenant; others, such as the Mosaic Covenant, were more of the nature of a diplomatic treaty. With the marriage covenant, God makes the two one flesh.
Please, I don't want to get into the issues surrounding whether a marriage is only a covenant marriage when and/or if it's initiated with a virgin. Drink too deep from Leviticus 21:13-15 while reflecting on Malachi 2:15 and you'll go nuts because that pulls in a lot of other minor points from various places in Scripture and the whole thing turns into a giant Calvinist-Armenian foodfight over predestination. If a woman is eligible to marry then she can be married. Are you both in Christ? Then you share a marriage within the New Covenant and if that's not good enough then salvation must not be good enough. And those discussions get contentious.
Let's talk about the idea of betrothal instead and give everyone the chance to have a headache. God cursed women at Genesis 3:16 and said
"your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you." It's off point to this discussion, but every command anywhere in the NT for wives to submit to their husbands is based in Genesis 3:16. Anytime you hear the "Ephesians 5:21 is the context" argument, keep in mind that it's a lie. Genesis 3:16 is the context. Numbers 16 is the proof of that. However, I take the position that the effect of the curse was what we describe today with the term "hypergamy."
Women are cursed with a desire to be ruled by a man who is fit to rule them. When such a man shows up, things happen. We call guys like that "alpha" and typically call guys who are of the more "ho-hum" variety "betas." To keep it simple, some men are more attractive than others and every woman has her attraction point. Some women never have their attraction point triggered and thus never really respond to any man and are often labeled "frigid." Other women have a low attraction point and many men can trigger it, a situation they tend to respond to so those gals are often labeled "sluts". The point is that when a man triggers a woman's attraction point she will often do amazing things. Women have been known to leave husbands and children behind without a second thought because such a man said "come with me." They've been known to drive hundreds of miles, crawl through a window and hide in a closet for hours until his wife leaves... just to be able to climb in bed with a man they are truly attracted to. That is a very uncomfortable observation to make and women often respond by saying "Not All Women Are Like That" (NAWALT). I'm not going to deconstruct that logical fallacy but God did curse all women. And men who understand that tend to be wary of women.
In Deuteronomy 22:13-21, there is no question the woman committed adultery, the question is who she committed adultery with, which begs the question of who her husband actually was. If she lost her virginity (was married) prior to the engagement, then the engagement and marriage was fraudulent and the man she was engaged to committed adultery in the act of what he thought was the consummation of his marriage. If she lost her virginity after the engagement began, she committed adultery against the man she was engaged to, who was her husband in fact if not deed. However, if a witch-hunt to determine the facts was conducted, there was a good chance an innocent man would have to die for committing adultery. If you want my take on this with all the text analysis, I covered it in "
Fornication, Premarital Sex And The Easter Bunny."
The point is, look at her behavior. Logically, a woman who has secured an engagement to a suitable man doesn't want to mess that up (and her parents don't want that either) so she's going to be a good girl and bide her time. But, what if it happened prior to the engagement? That's a major problem. If one looks carefully at Deuteronomy 22, notice that a woman's testimony about rape is irrelevant, the judgments are evidence driven and presume the woman would lie about being raped. That makes women almost as uncomfortable as the fact that by not including widows or divorced women, the crime of rape is being defined as the crime of forced adultery. There's a lot to think about in that chapter for anyone who wants to study it.
Notice that while the Law of Marriage does not require a ceremony of any kind, the Law of Vows (Numbers 30) requires that if a man makes a vow or agreement he is obligated to keep his word. There is nothing to keep a man from negotiating an agreement with the father of a woman he wishes to have as a wife. It is in the best interests of all involved that such an agreement is made because it ensures the woman is not pregnant with another man's child at the end of the betrothal period. While the Law of Marriage says that a man and woman are married with the act of having sex, the Law of Vows says that if the man enters into an agreement he is to keep it. This is where "premarital sex" comes from. Premarital sex is when a betrothed couple jump the gun and the man violates his word to wait until the date and time set certain at the end of their betrothal period. While he had the right to initiate the marriage when he chose, he voluntarily gave up that right under the terms of the agreement.
I think this is where a lot of confusion comes from. It's well understood that rights can be waived in equitable contract, so an individual can voluntarily sign a non-disclosure-agreement (NDA) and give up their right of free speech in a specific area in return for some consideration. If someone accepts a job offer that's contingent on signing an NDA because they will learn trade secrets; and they later reveal those secrets, a court will not view their claims of an exercise of the right to free speech with favor. It is the same with marriage and an engagement (betrothal) contract.
The betrothal period and celebration at the end of said period is completely voluntary but once the agreement is made, it is mandatory. To claim that a period of time is required (publishing banns) and a public ceremony is required is a gross abuse of the man's authority to initiate marriage under the Law of Marriage. This is what the early church did, but that's a rabbit trail. What we are faced with today is the idea that the betrothal period and ceremony is not voluntary but rather mandatory to the point that if the ceremony does not occur the individuals are not married. And "premarital sex" is just a sin that can be forgiven, it has no lasting effects.
As to the issue of what that chart looks like, I should have thought that through and made a different version for you guys. The nekkid women were placed there to get a specific reaction (which I got) and it stimulated a great conversation about lust. As those of you here already know, a man is authorized to have more than one wife. Therefore, a man having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry cannot ever be an act of adultery because if she's married she's not eligible to marry. Adultery, quite literally, requires a married woman. Thus, when we look at Matthew 5 where Jesus said that to look on a woman with lust meant the man had already committed adultery in his heart... we can see that meant the woman concerned must be a married woman. Therefore, lust is a desire that cannot legitimately be obtained. No man can look on his wife with lust or look on a woman he is eligible to marry with lust because that woman can be obtained and he can legitimately satisfy that desire. As to some of the language, trying to explain what is generally known as the AF/BB model of hypergamy is pretty much impossible without using a certain word...
As to the issue of a man (married or not) being authorized to have sex with any woman eligible to marry... because he is authorized to initiate marriage and marriage is initiated with the act of marriage (sex)... this brings us to the issue that some women have agency and some women do not.
Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 make it clear that a virgin does not have agency. She is married to the man who takes her virginity. Under some circumstances her father has the authority to annul that, but in others he does not. However, 1st Cor. 7:39 makes it clear that a woman who is not a virgin and not married does have agency. She must consent in order for her to be married. Keep in mind that the man gives his consent to marry with the act of penetrating a woman. Every. Single. Time. The authority to initiate marriage carries with it a large responsibility and part of that is the man is the moving agent in the process, so for him to choose to penetrate the woman is for him to consent to marry her. However, if the woman is not a virgin and she does not consent to the marriage (maybe she looks at it as a "test drive") then they are not married with the act of having sex. Neither have they sinned because Romans 4:15 and 5:13 makes it clear that where there is no Law there is no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed. This is why Samson was still clean and had not violated his Nazerite vow when he visited (used) a prostitute in Judges 16:1-3.
We must also keep in mind that the Law cannot be changed. Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 both forbid anyone to either add to the Law or subtract from it. What we see in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is the Apostle Paul giving an ordinance for the church that only applies to Christians. Obviously, only a Christian could possibly join the members of Christ to a whore, so this is one of the "house rules" for the servants of Christ as members of His house. We accept, as Christians, that the instruction from the Apostles was given under the inspiration of Christ and reflects His desires. With that in mind we can say that Christ chose not to allow Paul to restrict His servants from having sex with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman (non-virgins) even though such an act might not result in marriage. What Christ caused Paul to do instead, was to forbid Christian men from using prostitutes. I balk at trying to explain why God chooses to do anything, but perhaps it's because the use of a prostitute that the man had no intention of marrying was an abuse of his authority as a man. And if one examines the text carefully, it does not exclude marriage to a prostitute because in the act of becoming his wife she can no longer be a prostitute for she is now his wife.
I'll now go back over the comments and try to find what I missed.
