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

[The Revolting Man]

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.

Nicely done! Very thorough!

 

[MemeFan]

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.

Nope.

We now do things formal because doing it informal can create issues.

If you do just a little look at sexual practice in Christendom, you will find a ton of informal marriages. In fact, most of them were informal which sometimes did create issue in court with one side arguing they were married while another claiming opposite. I can imagine situations why.

Imagine you enter into store and ask can you work here. Well, you can clean store. After you spend hour cleaning store and are sent home, did you earn hour of wages? Yes, you did.

Anyway, general point is that something exist when essence of thing is being done/exist. And I pointed that society can attached other thing to essence due to various reasons. And with time people can confuse essence with attached things.

In Late Medieval times marriage started to become formalized since priests become sick of same issues (probably men running away from newly first time pregnant wives, evil girls trying to marriage trap innocent attractive men...).

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Nope.

We now do things formal because doing it informal can create issues.

If you do just a little look at sexual practice in Christendom, you will find a ton of informal marriages. In fact, most of them were informal which sometimes did create issue in court with one side arguing they were married while another claiming opposite. I can imagine situations why.

Imagine you enter into store and ask can you work here. Well, you can clean store. After you spend hour cleaning store and are sent home, did you earn hour of wages? Yes, you did.

Anyway, general point is that something exist when essence of thing is being done/exist. And I pointed that society can attached other thing to essence due to various reasons. And with time people can confuse essence with attached things.

In Late Medieval times marriage started to become formalized since priests become sick of same issues (probably men running away from newly first time pregnant wives, evil girls trying to marriage trap innocent attractive men...).

I am not talking about formalities associated with human governments. I am speaking of the process we see in scripture.
This has been rehashed over and over. Scripture is clear. A man who convinces a woman to sleep with him still has to get her fathers permission to marry her. That alone is proof that the sex did not equal the marriage.

 

[steve]

What makes a marriage?
Agreement, without agreement there is no marriage.

If a woman agrees to have sex for $20, that’s the sum total of the agreement.
If she (and her father, if she is under his covering) agrees to have sex as the beginning of a marriage, then a marriage exists.
If she doesn’t agree to have sex, it is a rape.
If she agrees to have sex without any agreement of marriage, that is simply fornication.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I am not talking about formalities associated with human governments. I am speaking of the process we see in scripture.
This has been rehashed over and over. Scripture is clear. A man who convinces a woman to sleep with him still has to get her fathers permission to marry her. That alone is proof that the sex did not equal the marriage.

We have been over this time and again and this simply isn’t the case.

 

[The Revolting Man]

What makes a marriage?
Agreement, without agreement there is no marriage.

If a woman agrees to have sex for $20, that’s the sum total of the agreement.
If she (and her father, if she is under his covering) agrees to have sex as the beginning of a marriage, then a marriage exists.
If she doesn’t agree to have sex, it is a rape.
If she agrees to have sex without any agreement of marriage, that is simply fornication.

Except Paul says that sex with a harlot is marriage and there is no sin le formication anywhere in the Bible.

I know we don’t agree on this but we at least have to get the facts straight.

 

[steve]

Except Paul says that sex with a harlot is marriage and there is no sin le formication anywhere in the Bible.

I know we don’t agree on this but we at least have to get the facts straight.

There are things that we still don’t understand about this.
I don’t think that it means that a harlot gets a new husband with every sexual encounter that she has.
As far as fornication, , Paul says avoid it
We are also told that fornicators will not have a place in heaven. So we better not be teaching that there is no sin of fornication.
Just because Yah didn’t spoon-feed us a detailed explanation is no excuse to shrug our shoulders and play dumb.

 

[The Revolting Man]

There are things that we still don’t understand about this.
I don’t think that it means that a harlot gets a new husband with every sexual encounter that she has.
As far as fornication, , Paul says avoid it
We are also told that fornicators will not have a place in heaven. So we better not be teaching that there is no sin of fornication.
Just because Yah didn’t spoon-feed us a detailed explanation is no excuse to shrug our shoulders and play dumb.

We still need a working definition of a sin so serious it can keep us out of heaven.

 

[steve]

We still need a working definition of a sin so serious it can keep us out of heaven.

That’s fair. And I’ll wait for someone smarter than me to produce it.
But saying that it doesn’t exist because we don’t have a finite definition is unacceptable.

 

[MeganC]

A man who convinces a woman to sleep with him still has to get her fathers permission to marry her.

My husband convinced me to sleep with him and my father's approval had nothing at all to do with it. My father had absolutely no right to asserting his say one way or the other.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

My husband convinced me to sleep with him and my father's approval had nothing at all to do with it. My father had absolutely no right to asserting his say one way or the other.

To be fair... Your father had walked away from his fatherly duties long before that point in time, no?

 

[MemeFan]

To be fair... Your father had walked away from his fatherly duties long before that point in time, no?

Imagine her father did leave and father's blessing is must for marriage to happen.

If father left and he must bless marriage, then how such left girl ever find herself married? There is no way.

It's bad law if life regular complications (father could die of disease, kindapped, war casualty) are enough to stop her ever getting married.

Also, it would be Lord's stupidity if His followers usually finish in situation where to fullfil ltheir biological/bodily/material need(s) they must (usually) sin.

Btw, where are verse(s) defining who is next male guardian if there is no father?

 

[Maddog]

Except Paul says that sex with a harlot is marriage and there is no sin le formication anywhere in the Bible.

I know we don’t agree on this but we at least have to get the facts straight.

Paul says no such thing unless you read into the "One Flesh" argument. Contrast Ezekiel 16: "I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." Marriage is a TRANSACTION that includes the male doing the swearing. Follow what God wrote there in verse 8. This is the clearest example of the marriage of Yahweh to the Hebrew.

 

[MemeFan]

Paul says no such thing unless you read into the "One Flesh" argument. Contrast Ezekiel 16: "I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine." Marriage is a TRANSACTION that includes the male doing the swearing. Follow what God wrote there in verse 8. This is the clearest example of the marriage of Yahweh to the Hebrew.

As per Hebrews 9:15-28 covenant requires spilling of blood which implies two things.

1) Transaction consist of at least two actions where all actions must be done or state must be rollbacked to previous state before any action. Example is payment. Money must be taken from account of payer and put into account of payee.

Spilling of blood can't be rollbacked, which implies covenent can' be transaction.

2) Only thing capable of spilling blood is taking women's virginity. Father's permission doesn't spill blood, marriage license by state doesn't spill blood.

Thank you providing proof that marriage starts with sex.

 

[steve]

Imagine her father did leave and father's blessing is must for marriage to happen.

If father left and he must bless marriage, then how such left girl ever find herself married? There is no way.

It's bad law if life regular complications (father could die of disease, kindapped, war casualty) are enough to stop her ever getting married.

Also, it would be Lord's stupidity if His followers usually finish in situation where to fullfil ltheir biological/bodily/material need(s) they must (usually) sin.

Btw, where are verse(s) defining who is next male guardian if there is no father?

Imagine the concept of caring for daughters and protecting them from the “bad boys” that too many of them are attracted to.
It’s not about rules, it’s about being responsible.
Closest available male relative is usually not too hard to figure out. Boaz knew that he wasn’t and went directly to the one who was. Nobody disagreed.

 

[Maddog]

As per Hebrews 9:15-28 covenant requires spilling of blood which implies two things.

1) Transaction consist of at least two actions where all actions must be done or state must be rollbacked to previous state before any action. Example is payment. Money must be taken from account of payer and put into account of payee.

Spilling of blood can't be rollbacked, which implies covenent can' be transaction.

2) Only thing capable of spilling blood is taking women's virginity. Father's permission doesn't spill blood, marriage license by state doesn't spill blood.

Thank you providing proof that marriage starts with sex.

Dont be too smart for your own good. I do believe that Ezekiel preceded Pauls writing of Hebrews. Yahweh's recollection of the event laid out what HE did. I would start with the AUTHOR and build off that. Based off your later definition, no prostitute could ever be married because the spilling of blood was done way earlier.

 

[steve]

As per Hebrews 9:15-28 covenant requires spilling of blood which implies two things.

1) Transaction consist of at least two actions where all actions must be done or state must be rollbacked to previous state before any action. Example is payment. Money must be taken from account of payer and put into account of payee.

Spilling of blood can't be rollbacked, which implies covenent can' be transaction.

2) Only thing capable of spilling blood is taking women's virginity. Father's permission doesn't spill blood, marriage license by state doesn't spill blood.

Thank you providing proof that marriage starts with sex.

Thank you for providing a fine example of Pharisaical logic.

 

[MemeFan]

Imagine the concept of caring for daughters and protecting them from the “bad boys” that too many of them are attracted to.
It’s not about rules, it’s about being responsible.
Closest available male relative is usually not too hard to figure out. Boaz knew that he wasn’t and went directly to the one who was. Nobody disagreed.

Imagine concept of caring enough for daughter that you teach her to recognize bad boys.

 

[MemeFan]

Thank you for providing a fine example of Pharisaical logic.

There is nothing Pharisaical there.

Covenant doesn't fulfill definition of transaction and therefore can't be transaction.

Covenant structure of Bible and it's requirements were found by Sutton and expanded/popularized by Gary North.

Provide arguments against my thesis. Calling it Pharisicial is same as Democrat calling it racist. You can put more substance bevause you are smart enough for that.

 

[MemeFan]

Dont be too smart for your own good.

Already aware. Thanks.

I do believe that Ezekiel preceded Pauls writing of Hebrews. Yahweh's recollection of the event laid out what HE did. I would start with the AUTHOR and build off that.

And structure of covenant comes from Torah, so it comes before.

Based off your later definition, no prostitute could ever be married because the spilling of blood was done way earlier.

I did noticed that second marriage wouldn't invlude spilling of blood. At least my thesis does include spilling of blood once.

I do think,for women, first marriage is to be enough. Second amd rest are, well, life is sometimes cruel.