Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 give your system of adjudication/penalty, and Deuteronomy 22:16 seems to put it in a rather bad light.
-
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.
Meat Common Misconceptions and Mistranslation Issues
- Thread starter Luke S
- Start date
Also @The Revolting Man and @NickF , Genesis 34 throws a wrench into both of y'all's arguments. Shechem took Dinah, but they were not married, hence him still having to ask Jacob and sons for her.
Vs 3 may indicate the one-flesh relationship, maybe the answer is that "one flesh" does not inherently equal marriage? (cf 1 Corinthians 6:16)
Vs 3 may indicate the one-flesh relationship, maybe the answer is that "one flesh" does not inherently equal marriage? (cf 1 Corinthians 6:16)
One flesh means one flesh. Marriage is a covenant wherein one flesh union is lawful.
*tells @CatieF to go pop him some popcorn*
If two become one flesh do you separate it?
What? Separate what?
One flesh is screwing. No need to over spiritualize this. It’s simply copulation.
So 2 can become one flesh by having sex but are not bound by the two becoming one flesh of matthew 19:5? So there are two types of becoming one flesh? Yeshua says not to separate two that have become one flesh so this is some different type of one flesh that Gods law does not apply to?
Commitment or covenant, aka promise, need not be a written thing. You can look a woman in the eye and tell her you’re taking her as a wife, and if she doesn’t cry rape, and you consummate the relationship. I say you’re married. You sealed the deal.
The only differentiation in scripture that I can find between instances of whoring, and other elicit sexual acts between available couples and marriage is a choice/covenant/commitment to be married. Or arguably the payment of a price, which in my mind is the same as making that commitment.
The only differentiation in scripture that I can find between instances of whoring, and other elicit sexual acts between available couples and marriage is a choice/covenant/commitment to be married. Or arguably the payment of a price, which in my mind is the same as making that commitment.
So that would be as long as you dont make a spoken promise or pay a price, then you dont have to worry about being bound to the person by matthew 19 and Mark 10? Sorry for all the questions, asking questions helps me learn lol
6031. עָנָה (anah) Humbled, afflicted, defiled, ravished, raped, forced, violate
Exodus 22:22
Deuteronomy 21:14
Deuteronomy 22:24
Deuteronomy 22:29
Judges 19:24
Judges 20:5
2 Samuel 13:12
2 Samuel 13:14
2 Samuel 13:22
2 Samuel 13:32
Psalm 107:17
Lamentations 5:11
Ezekiel 22:10
Ezekiel 22:11
Exodus 22:22
Deuteronomy 21:14
Deuteronomy 22:24
Deuteronomy 22:29
Judges 19:24
Judges 20:5
2 Samuel 13:12
2 Samuel 13:14
2 Samuel 13:22
2 Samuel 13:32
Psalm 107:17
Lamentations 5:11
Ezekiel 22:10
Ezekiel 22:11
I think to take a woman's virginity without a commitment of this thing we call marriage, without having honorable intentions to care for, protect and provide for her is to do wrong to her. This is borne out in scripture. You could trick her and make her think you love her and there is a commitment. This would be tantamount to rape in my opinion. It would be defiling her. Polluting her, taking from her, destroying the gift she could give to her man. You could treat the joining as inconsequential when God calls it a very important and not to be trifled with union. This would be defiling her. And if she did this cavalierly and with no intent to be your woman, she would be playing the harlot, or acting like a whore.
So no, if you sleep with a woman you either intend to marry or you defile her and yourself.
So no, if you sleep with a woman you either intend to marry or you defile her and yourself.
@James Pease and @NickF , could it be more simply put that the sex makes the one flesh union and, in light of Exodus 22:16, it is thereby be a sin to not marry her if that union is made?
Yes, that is what I believe scripture bears out. I understand others insist that the one flesh union constitutes "marriage", but there are too many scriptural instances where a man does not get to keep the woman Exodus 21. If a man sleeps with a maid that is not betrothed and lie with her he shall endow her to be his wife. Exodus 22:16 This verse does not say "he has endowed" it uses a particular future tense imperative. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Future tense imperative. There's at least two off the top of my head.
Also we have numerous examples of women being harlots. That's a different Hebrew word than adulterer. IF a one flesh union automatically constituted "marriage" then the second instance of intercourse would constitute adultery, not a different Hebrew word for some other act. It's nonsensical to have two words to describe one thing when one is perfectly and easily understood.
Again, I'm fairly new to this topic, so I am not 100% positive of my convictions on this. Just explaining what I understand and see in scripture. Entirely happy and desiring to hear other explanations and corrections if I am in error.
Genesis 34 is descriptive not prescriptive. It relayed something that happened, not something that is a template for how things should happen.
Exodus 22:16 says that seducing a virgin makes her your wife, which is my main claim. What are you arguing it says? The Deuteronomy passage is a variation on the same theme, covering rape this time. It supports the claim that sex equals marriage. What are you claiming and what do you think I’m claiming?
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
You see that this shall is a future imperative right? Not “has”, “shall”.
That sounds like a distinction without a difference. Check some other translations though, they word it much differently. YLT specifically, it says “he doth certainly endow her to himself for a wife;”
It’s an enormously important distinction. If it read “had or has” endowed it would mean the act of copulation created the relationship of wife.
If it reads a future imperative it means he “will be required to” do the thing. The thing being “endow her to be his wife”.
Just as the 2nd amendment reads, the government shall not infringe. It does not mean they haven’t. It means they “must not” they are constrained to not infringe.
Exact same grammar and meaning.
If it reads a future imperative it means he “will be required to” do the thing. The thing being “endow her to be his wife”.
Just as the 2nd amendment reads, the government shall not infringe. It does not mean they haven’t. It means they “must not” they are constrained to not infringe.
Exact same grammar and meaning.