DiscipleOfChrist
Member
This would probably be a hard discussion for most people to look at objectively because of its implications for a lot of people's real-life situations. I'm interested in what this all means for my situations going forward as I mean to act on sound doctrine myself, of course. But, none of that is the point at the moment, so much as doctrinal accuracy.
I'm interested in discussing the present-day application of Exodus 22:16-17. I had lurked in some threads and saw someone say something that I thought was interesting regarding pornography, that whatever woman was being viewed was actually someone's wife, referencing this passage. I thought this was interesting because, likewise, I don't see how this law should be ignored for how God's law views sexual intimacy and marriage.
Exodus 22:16-17
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
I see no reason why this law shouldn't be applied today, and I know that some people generally hold this view, too: if two people have "pre-marital sex," then just get married. The man basically took something without permission and *might* end up having to pay for something that he doesn't get going forward, but that aside, no one is treated like they committed some sexual deviance; you just signed up for marriage, whether you thought you did or not, so you essentially just choose to stick with what you signed up for.
Here's where it gets hairy because I know how many people consider themselves to be experts and won't acknowledge when they've overlooked a point or detail. Worse, the discussion can have implications for people's personal situations and logical conclusions can be offensive to people in that regard (like any point of doctrine, really). But, it's an important discussion.
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 shows an important contrast and refers to nearly the same thing but makes a totally different judgment based on the woman keeping the act a secret: "played the whore while still in her father's house."
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21
13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip2 him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels3 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin4 of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Like Leviticus 21:9, this "playing the whore" is considered an offense toward the father, who has authority over her. Numbers 30 alludes to the passing of authority over a woman from father to husband, which is, I have no doubt, the reason why a father has the power to negate the implicit covenant that occurs in Exodus 22:16-17.
The issue is not "virginity fraud." That's not a category of sin made up on the fly as a particular crime within a particular culture for which God designed female biology to accommodate. The reason is stated clearly in the law: "played the whore while still in her father's house."
In Exodus 22:16-17, a woman has sexual relations with a man while, likewise, still in her father's house, since the father is referenced in v.17. Why aren't we saying that she "played the whore while still in her father's house," then? When we compare these two passages, we can deduce that referring to the so-called "pre-marital" sexual act as "playing the whore" depends on the woman's response, and that her keeping it secret reflects the desire to dodge what would be the resulting marriage; consider, that whether the woman was "seduced" or not, she's still in a position to be caught without the biological sign of virginity and no one knows the details behind it (it could have been a "seduction" involving just one man on one occasion). Joseph was told by an angel not to be "afraid" of taking Mary, not just put off: a man is supposed to be "afraid" to marry a "whorish" woman.
It's not a small thing that God designed women to be identified as virgins. Of course, in the situation of Exodus 22:16-17, the father might prevent a marriage and the woman is no longer biologically a virgin, but she isn't one to be identify as a "whore" like in Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 because there was not an attempt to dodge a marriage; she remains just as marriageable as a virgin, receiving no punishment or new sort of label.
Again, I know people's tendencies to pitch fits about conclusions they don't like and I'm already ready to simply ignore those kinds of responses, noting only even-handed and logical ones. For what it's worth, I too have severely inconvenienced myself in this life on account of what I see the Bible teaching regarding marriage and sexuality, which is the point. My concern is the situation of a man marrying a non-virgin and being sorry for "pre-marital sex" isn't really the concern or issue. Rather, the point is recognizing that a marriage was desired by God after the act. I would also deduce that in a "casual sex" situation where both mutually leave, we can look at this just like a divorce between unbelievers, but that would still include repentance of a willingness to divorce/separate.
To illustrate what I mean, I can imagine a man marrying a woman with a past of "pre-marital sex" who has repented of being agreeable to the separations just as a guilty woman of Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 would repent of dodging the marriage that should have resulted from the law of Exodus 22:16-17. Given that the men left, there isn't a mandate for her to consider herself currently bound to them, but the repentance is necessary to avoid the "whorish" heart that God designed women in such a way that alerts a man for his sake to help him avoid. 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 describes "porneia," from a man's perspective, of joining the body to a prostitute, hence Jesus' exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that provides a way to avoid committing this sin with a promiscuous "wife." This is likewise the reason for Deut 24:1-4, preventing a joining to a "defiled" wife, just as God refuses to join to His wife until she repents and is cleansed of her defilement (Jeremiah 3).
The discussion around marrying a virgin is very curious as virgins are often considered more desirable without articulation as for exactly why. "It's not just a good idea, it's the law." In today's world, we have situations where many people regret "pre-marital sex" but we have a lot of problems coming from incorrect responses/repentance, just like we see conflicting responses to what happens after divorces.
So, I'm curious for where some would stand on this issue as I suspect it might not be the mainstream response: how do you account for resolutions to "pre-marital sex" in light of Exodus 22:16-17?
I'm interested in discussing the present-day application of Exodus 22:16-17. I had lurked in some threads and saw someone say something that I thought was interesting regarding pornography, that whatever woman was being viewed was actually someone's wife, referencing this passage. I thought this was interesting because, likewise, I don't see how this law should be ignored for how God's law views sexual intimacy and marriage.
Exodus 22:16-17
16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
I see no reason why this law shouldn't be applied today, and I know that some people generally hold this view, too: if two people have "pre-marital sex," then just get married. The man basically took something without permission and *might* end up having to pay for something that he doesn't get going forward, but that aside, no one is treated like they committed some sexual deviance; you just signed up for marriage, whether you thought you did or not, so you essentially just choose to stick with what you signed up for.
Here's where it gets hairy because I know how many people consider themselves to be experts and won't acknowledge when they've overlooked a point or detail. Worse, the discussion can have implications for people's personal situations and logical conclusions can be offensive to people in that regard (like any point of doctrine, really). But, it's an important discussion.
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 shows an important contrast and refers to nearly the same thing but makes a totally different judgment based on the woman keeping the act a secret: "played the whore while still in her father's house."
Deuteronomy 22: 13-21
13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip2 him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels3 of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin4 of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days. 20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.
Like Leviticus 21:9, this "playing the whore" is considered an offense toward the father, who has authority over her. Numbers 30 alludes to the passing of authority over a woman from father to husband, which is, I have no doubt, the reason why a father has the power to negate the implicit covenant that occurs in Exodus 22:16-17.
The issue is not "virginity fraud." That's not a category of sin made up on the fly as a particular crime within a particular culture for which God designed female biology to accommodate. The reason is stated clearly in the law: "played the whore while still in her father's house."
In Exodus 22:16-17, a woman has sexual relations with a man while, likewise, still in her father's house, since the father is referenced in v.17. Why aren't we saying that she "played the whore while still in her father's house," then? When we compare these two passages, we can deduce that referring to the so-called "pre-marital" sexual act as "playing the whore" depends on the woman's response, and that her keeping it secret reflects the desire to dodge what would be the resulting marriage; consider, that whether the woman was "seduced" or not, she's still in a position to be caught without the biological sign of virginity and no one knows the details behind it (it could have been a "seduction" involving just one man on one occasion). Joseph was told by an angel not to be "afraid" of taking Mary, not just put off: a man is supposed to be "afraid" to marry a "whorish" woman.
It's not a small thing that God designed women to be identified as virgins. Of course, in the situation of Exodus 22:16-17, the father might prevent a marriage and the woman is no longer biologically a virgin, but she isn't one to be identify as a "whore" like in Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 because there was not an attempt to dodge a marriage; she remains just as marriageable as a virgin, receiving no punishment or new sort of label.
Again, I know people's tendencies to pitch fits about conclusions they don't like and I'm already ready to simply ignore those kinds of responses, noting only even-handed and logical ones. For what it's worth, I too have severely inconvenienced myself in this life on account of what I see the Bible teaching regarding marriage and sexuality, which is the point. My concern is the situation of a man marrying a non-virgin and being sorry for "pre-marital sex" isn't really the concern or issue. Rather, the point is recognizing that a marriage was desired by God after the act. I would also deduce that in a "casual sex" situation where both mutually leave, we can look at this just like a divorce between unbelievers, but that would still include repentance of a willingness to divorce/separate.
To illustrate what I mean, I can imagine a man marrying a woman with a past of "pre-marital sex" who has repented of being agreeable to the separations just as a guilty woman of Deuteronomy 22: 13-21 would repent of dodging the marriage that should have resulted from the law of Exodus 22:16-17. Given that the men left, there isn't a mandate for her to consider herself currently bound to them, but the repentance is necessary to avoid the "whorish" heart that God designed women in such a way that alerts a man for his sake to help him avoid. 1 Corinthians 6:13-20 describes "porneia," from a man's perspective, of joining the body to a prostitute, hence Jesus' exception clause in Matthew 19:9 that provides a way to avoid committing this sin with a promiscuous "wife." This is likewise the reason for Deut 24:1-4, preventing a joining to a "defiled" wife, just as God refuses to join to His wife until she repents and is cleansed of her defilement (Jeremiah 3).
The discussion around marrying a virgin is very curious as virgins are often considered more desirable without articulation as for exactly why. "It's not just a good idea, it's the law." In today's world, we have situations where many people regret "pre-marital sex" but we have a lot of problems coming from incorrect responses/repentance, just like we see conflicting responses to what happens after divorces.
So, I'm curious for where some would stand on this issue as I suspect it might not be the mainstream response: how do you account for resolutions to "pre-marital sex" in light of Exodus 22:16-17?
