Can men only marry virgins and widows?

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So I have this question.

If a woman has sex with a man is she instantly married to the last man she had sex with?

Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
1 Corinthians 6:16 NIV

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
[c] That is, about 1 1/4 pounds (about 0.6 kilogram)
Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NIV

"If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.
Exodus 22:16-17 NIV

If so does this mean that if another man marries her at a later time she has committed adultery against either the previous man or her husband?

If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.
Deutoronomy 22:20-21 NIV

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a girl pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the girl; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders his neighbor,
Deutoronomy 22:25-26 NIV

So if a man INTENTIONALLY marries a woman who is not a virgin, widow or rape victim, is that adultery because she would have been married to the previous man? Or would it be fine because she committed adultery against her future husband with the previous man and therefor okay for the man to marry her, if he just keeps her past secret instead of requesting her execution?

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Just as an FYI before this really gets going.....

You will never get this question resolved here or anywhere except in your heart because this exact question has been argued over since Matthew quoted the Messiah in his gospel, and actually before that even with the pharisees and scribes.

There are too many situations to consider, such as the certificate of divorce, the status of the women and her salvation when she lost her virginity, the location of the man that took it, his current whereabouts, his walk with the Lord at that point and now.

Too many times we try to take God's rules and apply them into a society that is clearly not God's people. Applying His rules in America today to fix or try to resolve a problem is fruitless many times because we should not be in the situation in the first place. It is like asking Him to bless swineflesh to our bodies for our nourishment. You are not supposed to get that far with it anyway. And so we create many situations that are hard to figure out because we are way off path to begin with, and God's plan of keeping that woman, and the woman not leaving the man was the first step off the path and away from Him. He does not give an second option for those that disobey the rule, and that is what we have here in the world today. And then most people, me included did not really know what the Bible said, we only knew what the church taught us (or did not teach us) about marriage and divorce. So we have men and women that have spent their virginity and not lived as married, contrary to God's Law, and it spreads confusion and defiles the land. That is where we are. My plan through all of this regarding this matter is to raise my daughters to understand that when they give it, it means covenant for life. And my sons know the rule is "you break, you buy" without exception, so they better not pick up anything that they can't carry their entire lives.

This type of life long understanding sobers them instantly. I work now not for me, but to start correcting the wrongs for the future generations. My daughters and sons will be pure on their wedding nights as long as it is within my power.

Ramble, Ramble....anyway, after all the posts and debates, you will probably come to the conclusion that you need to decide for yourself, and know that you will have to give an account to your Creator in the end. Choose conservatively and err on the side of caution.

Paul

 

[Mark C]

Very good, Paul. The main thing that any honest study of Scripture will reveal, when it comes to marriage, is that 'our' society is about a far removed from what He teaches as one could be.

Amerika is a mess of self-inflicted spiritual bondage.

Those men who come to understand the truth about marriage will recognize that there is no such thing as "casual sex". Women who come to know that same truth will eventually understand how (Isaiah 4:1) seven could eventually take hold of one true covering and say, "I will do [meaning meet all the normal marriage burdens myself]...only let me be called by your name, to take away my reproach".

There's plenty to go around.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

So I understand that it is good not to have your daughters have sex before marriage. And that your sons must marry anyone they have sex with.

But if you meet a woman who you know is not a virgin a single mother for instance. And she is not a widow and has not said she was a rape victim. Is it okay to marry the Non-Virgin Woman.

A lot of people on this post are single mothers and so this is an important topic

Now if her "husband" has not provided her with the three things in Exodus 21:10 a divorce might be legal in God's eyes Exodus 21:11

Therefor perhaps it is fine to marry a single woman so long as the man who had sex with her, is not still providing for her in those three ways.

But then again if you divorce a woman you can cause her to become an adulteress so maybe it still is forbidden to marry the Non-Virgin woman who was never officially married.

 

[Paul not the apostle]

Keep in mind that the Exodus passage that you have cited deals with a woman that is betrothed, but has not been consummated with a man, the man or any of his sons, according to the verses. The woman is a Hebrew servant betrothed to the master's house, and after serving her six years is not free to leave. Her price, unlike the price paid for a male servant, was also a type of bride price or betrothal price. She is there with the understanding of being betrothed (married in waiting) to that household, and the betrothal to be fufilled when the six years is done.

If for some reason, the woman is not pleasing to the master (unruly, lazy, whatever), he cannot just sell her, she has to go back to the family that she came from and be redeemed (the money paid for her rights returned) because he entered into an agreement of providing her with a husband, himself or of his sons. He has dealt in error with her by refusing to covenant with her, and she can go be anothers wife.

If he gives her in marriage or betrothal to a son, the master must treat her as a daughter in every respect, and no longer as a servant.

And now we come to the verses;

Exo 21:10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
Exo 21:11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

I assume the "he" in the above is back to referring to the master, and not the son that she is given to for marriage. The thought being that the two verses are two examples of what the master might do with her.

If the master takes another woman (betrothal or betrothal and consummation), then the master must still provide her with those three things listed, the food, clothing, and marital promise (she still has not been consummated. He may be planning to give her to a son that is not yet of age, but wants to take another to wife for himself. He explains this to her). If he diminishes any of these things during this time which is after her six years of service, she is free to go without the need for her to be redeemed because he broke his part of the agreement, she goes back to her family and the master looses the money he paid.

Or...

If the master married her before the start of the verses, and then also takes another wife, her rights cannot be diminished even though she started as a servant and his next wife did not start as a servant. She is a full and complete wife, and must be treated as such.

Personally, in those verses, the duty of marriage seems to still be at the betrothal stage, where she has not been "consummated". If the other is true, then there would be a very exploitable loophole in Divine Law, where a man could take a servant, use her as a wife, then marry another and just diminish the first wife's provision for the sole purpose of putting her away without being responsible for her permanently. This passage has been used by some (or many) to justify a woman leaving her husband if he does not provide, or if she has to share a household with another wife. I do not believe this to be the intent of Divine Law. If a husband diminishes provision to a sub standard level, the wife should and would go to the elders and leaders and demand justice. And, no woman would marry that type of man seeing his ways, no father would give or sell his daughter to that man seeing his manner of character. She can only go free because she has not been "humbled". Remember that a betrothed woman is considered to be married, with the rape of a betrothed woman holding the same punishment for the man that defiles her, and the same punishment for the defiled woman (if she calls for help) as if she had been a consummated woman.

There are probably lots that don't agree with my take on this passage or the passage that deals with seducing virgins and the father refusing to GIVE her, so the man has to pay anyway.

I say all this to make this point hopefully with clarity.

There are too many factors involved to make a black and white judgement. Was that non virgin single mother living as a believer when she lost her virginity? Was she more like the heathen in the Word, and did not even know the proper ways of the Law? If she knew this but was living in rebellion, has she repented?

A man that does not provide her with the "big three" has NOT satisfied the Divine requirements for divorce. Those verses only apply, and are only available to, a woman that started as a servant, was betrothed, and then neglected before consummation. If she had been consummated, they are one flesh, and no man may tear asunder unless the woman commits adultery. Any other interpretation leaves the woman or man being able to manipulate the Divine Law to allow for divorce without cause. There is no place in scripture that I am aware of that allows for a woman to divorce a man.

So, it will be impossible to apply Divine Law back into a person's life when that person was not applying Divine Law to their life themselves at the time of the issue in question. My personal opinion for you (speaking directly) is to very VERY heavily weigh the circumstances surrounding the divorce of that woman, and judge honestly if she has changed, repented, and is not the type of person that is going to do the same in a marriage to you. I am not the same person I was ten years ago, and I am thankful for the grace and forgiveness that has been so wonderfully given to me by my Creator. Has that woman tried to reconcile and the man is unwilling? I would say that you are free to marry. If the man is willing and the woman is not, I would say that you are not free to marry, and neither is she.

I have not proofed this, and wrote quickly so take it for what it is worth.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

A man that does not provide her with the "big three" has NOT satisfied the Divine requirements for divorce. Those verses only apply, and are only available to, a woman that started as a servant, was betrothed, and then neglected before consummation. If she had been consummated, they are one flesh, and no man may tear asunder unless the woman commits adultery. Any other interpretation leaves the woman or man being able to manipulate the Divine Law to allow for divorce without cause. There is no place in scripture that I am aware of that allows for a woman to divorce a man.

I disagree, because he must have already consummated her already for his duty of marriage to decrease I am assuming the duty of marriage is sex (and is measured as a rate sex/time.) And it would not give him the right to divorce her, but her the right to divorce him. If the man had sex with her one time [and thus they were instantly married] and then she has never seen him for years, the Non-Virgin might have a reason to divorce him because of lack of provision for food and clothes and sex. Of course if this argument is misused it might leave room for prostitution repeated fornication and or muta marriages which would be highly unethical.

IfH518 he takeH3947 him anotherH312 wife; her food,H7607 her raiment,H3682 and her duty of marriage,H5772 shall he notH3808 diminish.H1639

H5772
עונה
‛ônâh
o-naw'
From an unused root apparently meaning to dwell together; (sexual) cohabitation: - duty of marriage.

I used e-sword.

 

[staylor]

But if you meet a woman who you know is not a virgin a single mother for instance. And she is not a widow and has not said she was a rape victim. Is it okay to marry the Non-Virgin Woman.

yes,you could marry any woman just as long as she doesn't have a living husband. so a widow, a whore, a fornicator, a rape victim and a virgin are all eligible for marriage. but a woman who already has a living husband (whether she considers herself married, divorced, separated, annulled, etc.) is NOT eligible for marriage, because she already has a living husband. to marry her yourself would make you both adulterers, which you cannot repent of while remaining in adultery.

like paul said to timothy, make SURE the widows are TRULY widows.

 

[DiscussingTheTopic]

yes,you could marry any woman just as long as she doesn't have a living husband. so a widow, a whore, a fornicator, a rape victim and a virgin are all eligible for marriage. but a woman who already has a living husband (whether she considers herself married, divorced, separated, annulled, etc.) is NOT eligible for marriage, because she already has a living husband. to marry her yourself would make you both adulterers, which you cannot repent of while remaining in adultery.

like paul said to timothy, make SURE the widows are TRULY widows.

But is a woman who is not a widow and who is not a virgin automatically married to the last person she had physical relations, even though there was no wedding or marriage vows, marriage certificate, dowry, etc.? If she is then it would be adultery to marry her?

 

[staylor]

But is a woman who is not a widow and who is not a virgin automatically married to the last person she had physical relations, even though there was no wedding or marriage vows, marriage certificate, dowry, etc.? If she is then it would be adultery to marry her?

no otherwise fornicating women could not be married without committing adultery. marriage requires commitment to marry. sex without marriage is sex without commitment to marry. scripture calls this zanah or porneia. scripture demonstrates that becoming one flesh, even with a virgin, does not equal marriage, but in some cases may REQUIRE marriage. but even with levitical marriage, there had to be a committed CHOICE to CHOOSE to marry. for marriage to be legitimate, it cannot be forced upon anyone against their will.

for it to be adultery to marry her, she must already have a living husband. to have a living husband, she must have CHOSEN to be another man's wife. no agreement, no marriage, and therefore no adultery.