• 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.

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

Marriage (chathan) is consumated by sex (shakab), consumation is not the marriage. If it was, there is no reason to call it marriage (chathan), marriage would be described instead just as (shakab). Betrothal would be unnecessary. The father would not be able to anull as he would have had that authority stolen from him. Yet he can anull because the rapist is not yet the husband. The daughter has not been given.

You cannot unconsumate, but you can divorce (kerithuth). Betrothal (aras) preceeds consumation, shakab can happen before betrothal in some situations, yet adultery only applies after betrothal or the giving of the daughter. Adultery does not apply to rape/seduction(shakab) nor prostitution(qedeshah)/harlotry(zanah), instead it is fornication (taznûṯ), except if the woman is betrothed or already chathan. Note it does not require that she have a child, therefore one flesh in this aspect does not require with child or to have bore child as a qualifier for being married.

Adultery is also the only reason for "divorce" without a git, and punishable by death for consentual parties. Divorce (kerithuth) can be applied with and without a bill. Only adultery allows for without a bill. Its worth noting kerithuth is from karath which is to cut a covenant, where kerithuth is to cut a marital bond.

Matthew 1:25, Joseph was going to divorce Mary, never having lay with her. You cannot divorce that which is not your's to divorce, which has not been given or promised to you. If sex = marriage, Joseph does not have the right by the law to divorce Mary as he had not had sex with her yet. Adultery is entirely based on the womans status of belongining. That status can start before sex. Marriage has to start at the giving or the promising. Adultery and divorce are two marriage only applicable concepts, both can apply pre sex and dont always apply post sex.

Interesting thought, the sons of gods took wives for themselves, I wonder if this was forced or agreed?
 
Last edited:
I do think,for women, first marriage is to be enough. Second amd rest are, well, life is sometimes cruel.
Widowed women needing to be remarried was such a common issue God gave special instructions for it. According to the Word of God, women need to be married. He doesn't say once is enough, He just says for them to be married.
 
Marriage (chathan) is consumated by sex (shakab), consumation is not the marriage.
And a man only has the right to have sex with the woman who is his woman. Having sex with a random woman doesn't give a man the right to claim she is his woman and have more sex with her. She is to be his, and he is to be hers. 1 Cor. 7:2-3 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
 
And a man only has the right to have sex with the woman who is his woman. Having sex with a random woman doesn't give a man the right to claim she is his woman and have more sex with her. She is to be his, and he is to be hers. 1 Cor. 7:2-3 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.
And how does exactly woman becomes his woman?
 
Having sex with a random woman doesn't give a man the right to claim she is his woman and have more sex with her.

I respectfully disagree. If the sex is consensual and the woman is not committed to someone else then yes, he lays claim to her by having sex with her.

She is available to be claimed and they consummated their relationship. She is now his.
 
And how does exactly woman becomes his woman?
By betrothal,

1) No one considered Dinah Shechm's woman post sex, they did consider him fornicating with her though, then agreed to intermarry.

2) Mary is divorcable by Joseph pre sex.

3) A raped woman is not the rapists, unless the father allows it.

4-6) And if she is already betrothed it is adultery, if she is in the city and doesnt scream it applies to both parties, if she does, then only the rapist is guilty. If she is in the country it only applies to the rapist.

6 scriptural references all contradicting sex = marriage. Betrothal (Aras) is pre Marriage (chathan), which is pre sex (Shakab see Mary above). Sex equaling marriage effectively invalidates fornication as a concept, because if sex alone = marriage you are left with only 2 outcomes, marriage or adultery. Please provide counter scripture.

I actually have a 7th reference, Exodus 21:1-6, again deals with the master giving the slave a wife. The male slave cannot take her from his master, she is the masters to give and her and any offspring remain the masters.

But if the slave had a wife to begin with she belongs to the slave. If a man lays with a slave woman who is betrothed to another that is a violation, though its punishment is not akin to adultery, nor its it called adultery, but its still fornication, as she is another mans, but she is not free.

Again we see the violation is based on her betrothal status, not her ownership status, nor her sex status.

8th! Note even with a warbride there is a procedure to be completed before she is a valid wife, you cannot just sex her down.
 
Last edited:
8th! Note even with a warbride there is a procedure to be completed before she is a valid wife, you cannot just sex her down.
I don’t completely agree with you here, I think that you could take her as a concubine wife because you owned her.
But this is such a minor point, the rest is quite substantial in my opinion.
 
I don’t completely agree with you here, I think that you could take her as a concubine wife because you owned her.
But this is such a minor point, the rest is quite substantial in my opinion.
the thing here is the man does not own the war bride, there is a specific set of conditions that both parties must adhere to, then the man can go into her. Deut 21:10-11 Is the permissive passage to war brides, 12-13 is the procedure to validate that marriage. 14 says she is not a slave, if you are not happy with her she must go free. A pattern I am repeatedly seeing is protection for the woman to not be "gotchya'd" using sex alone. All examples so far have prerequistes that must be met and consequences for trying to jump those prerequistes.
 
Heres a moral question to stew on. If sex marriage does not make, is it moral to offer marriage to a woman who is living in fornication with another man? Think bf/gf modern dating, long term relationship but no betrothal, nor sign of commitment from him. What if she is in the word but he is not, would it be better to leave her in her situation with the idea he may be saved through her, or to pull her out of the situation and remove her from a life of fornication?
 
Heres a moral question to stew on. If sex marriage does not make, is it moral to offer marriage to a woman who is living in fornication with another man? Think bf/gf modern dating, long term relationship but no betrothal, nor sign of commitment from him. What if she is in the word but he is not, would it be better to leave her in her situation with the idea he may be saved through her, or to pull her out of the situation and remove her from a life of fornication?
No, because that would be adultery.
 
Heres a moral question to stew on. If sex marriage does not make, is it moral to offer marriage to a woman who is living in fornication with another man? Think bf/gf modern dating, long term relationship but no betrothal, nor sign of commitment from him. What if she is in the word but he is not, would it be better to leave her in her situation with the idea he may be saved through her, or to pull her out of the situation and remove her from a life of fornication?
In my opinion, if the boyfriend doesn’t want to “put a ring on it” it’s fornication.
If she wants to leave that life and wants to walk a righteous walk, I would suggest that she be celibate for a year before starting a new relationship.

Rejecting her and condemning her to continue her present lifestyle doesn’t seem very Christ like.
 
In my opinion, if the boyfriend doesn’t want to “put a ring on it” it’s fornication.
If she wants to leave that life and wants to walk a righteous walk, I would suggest that she be celibate for a year before starting a new relationship.

Rejecting her and condemning her to continue her present lifestyle doesn’t seem very Christ like.
I am with Steve on this one. I think he is indicating a 12 month hiatus on her part but as he said, that is just a suggestion.
If they are not married, she is fair game.

BE CAREFUL with a situation like this. In fact, I recommend running away but, biblically, I agree with Steve on this one!
 
the thing here is the man does not own the war bride, there is a specific set of conditions that both parties must adhere to, then the man can go into her. Deut 21:10-11 Is the permissive passage to war brides, 12-13 is the procedure to validate that marriage. 14 says she is not a slave, if you are not happy with her she must go free. A pattern I am repeatedly seeing is protection for the woman to not be "gotchya'd" using sex alone. All examples so far have prerequistes that must be met and consequences for trying to jump those prerequistes.
He owns the woman that he took in war.
She is his slave UNLESS he chooses to take her as a wife.
 
I don't see support for this in scripture, can you provide your references?
Taking slaves in a war is a given, do you need documentation on that?

The special instructions for converting a slave taken in war are given for a reason.
Is there a problem with understanding that?
 
I respectfully disagree. If the sex is consensual and the woman is not committed to someone else then yes, he lays claim to her by having sex with her.

She is available to be claimed and they consummated their relationship. She is now his.
You said it correctly; it is a consensual relationship and she is claimed. That is what gives the right for the sex. If she doesn't consent, it's rape not a marriage. She wasn't his so he had no right for sex and raping her doesn't change it. Blessings
 
Back
Top