And if you are made one flesh with her and then shun her, as one would a prostitute he's slept with, you could be divorcing her unlawfully and so banned from any further marriages.
-
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.
Profane Relationships
- Thread starter yoderfamily
- Start date
Not in this case. I'm pretty sure He'd take a dim view of it either way.
I have been deliberately silent so far, because I know Aaron was inspired to post this partially due to a disagreement with my own presentation of it in my booklet "Marriage: From the Bible alone". As it is a very serious issue, I have been leaving the discussion to others simply so I could see what the rest of you would come up with, because I seriously want to understand if I've got anything wrong here. My booklet is here if anyone hasn't read it and would like to see where I'm coming from:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agtxwdxllrqc0 ... b.pdf?dl=0
My basic position has been:
1)
Marriage involves two aspects - covenant / agreement, and consummation. The covenant = betrothal, consummation = sex turning betrothal into marriage. Both are required for a marriage. We see both in Old Testament marriage, with the betrothed woman considered married to the point that sex with her = adultery. And we see both separate aspects in Western marriage also, just compressed - we tend to make a covenant one day at a marriage ceremony and then consummate it that evening.
2)
Sex alone does not constitute marriage, according to Exodus 22:16-17. This passage separates the covenant (here agreement by the father) and the physical act, and states that even if the physical act has occurred there is no marriage without also making a covenant. If the covenant is refused there is still no marriage. So the sex cannot have formed a marriage, at least in this case.
The father cannot end the marriage through annulment. Firstly, "annulment" never appears in scripture, it was invented by the Catholic church. Secondly, "annulment" is actually a declaration that the marriage never properly existed in the first place. So if the father can annul the marriage, that would mean it never existed in the first place, which means that sex alone does not constitute marriage, which takes us back to my first point. Sex needs both covenant and consummation, consummation alone does not equal marriage.
The sex did not constitute a covenant, because the father's agreement was still required. So sex does not = covenant.
3)
Exodus 22:16-17 only applies to virgins. This means the Bible gives consequences for the man who sleeps with a virgin, but no consequences for sleeping with a non-virgin. We can see that God values marriage very highly, and encourages widows / divorcees to marry etc, so sleeping with a non-virgin then abandoning her is not in keeping with the spirit of God's Word. We should not do it. But, it's not explicitly banned.
Add to that the fact that we have prostitutes mentioned on several occasions in the scripture, generally in negative terms, but never actually punished in any way simply for being prostitutes, and the fact that prominent men such as Samson slept with prostitutes without condemnation, and the whole thing gets even more unsettling.
That makes me as uncomfortable as it makes Aaron, hence his posting this thread, and me reading it very carefully.
The key passage that has been pointed out in this thread that contradicts this logic is
I am still certain that sex does not equal the covenant in the case of a virgin, as explained above. I think that Exodus 22:16-17 is very clear on that point. But this is simply because the woman in that case did not have the authority to make the covenant, her father had to. Sex cannot be the covenant simply because the father wasn't involved (terrible mental picture, sorry :shock: ...). The covenant is always with the woman's head.
But a rightly divorced woman or widow is her own head (Numbers 30:9). So the covenant of marriage in this case is between the man and her alone. In this case, sex could constitute both covenant and consummation.
This means that:
- Sex with a virgin does not = marriage, because the correct covenant has not been made. Her father must still approve. But
- Sex with a non-virgin equals marriage, because both parties were fully capable of agreeing to marriage
What is correct? Is sex with a non-virgin discouraged but not banned, or is sex with a non-virgin marriage? Keen to hear any thoughts on this, because I need to get this right before publishing that booklet more widely than I have already.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/agtxwdxllrqc0 ... b.pdf?dl=0
My basic position has been:
1)
Marriage involves two aspects - covenant / agreement, and consummation. The covenant = betrothal, consummation = sex turning betrothal into marriage. Both are required for a marriage. We see both in Old Testament marriage, with the betrothed woman considered married to the point that sex with her = adultery. And we see both separate aspects in Western marriage also, just compressed - we tend to make a covenant one day at a marriage ceremony and then consummate it that evening.
2)
Sex alone does not constitute marriage, according to Exodus 22:16-17. This passage separates the covenant (here agreement by the father) and the physical act, and states that even if the physical act has occurred there is no marriage without also making a covenant. If the covenant is refused there is still no marriage. So the sex cannot have formed a marriage, at least in this case.
If the sex HAD formed a marriage, this could not be broken without a divorce. So they became married, then the father required them to divorce. That would seem to violate every passage speaking against divorce.Exodus 22:16-17 said:
The father cannot end the marriage through annulment. Firstly, "annulment" never appears in scripture, it was invented by the Catholic church. Secondly, "annulment" is actually a declaration that the marriage never properly existed in the first place. So if the father can annul the marriage, that would mean it never existed in the first place, which means that sex alone does not constitute marriage, which takes us back to my first point. Sex needs both covenant and consummation, consummation alone does not equal marriage.
The sex did not constitute a covenant, because the father's agreement was still required. So sex does not = covenant.
3)
Exodus 22:16-17 only applies to virgins. This means the Bible gives consequences for the man who sleeps with a virgin, but no consequences for sleeping with a non-virgin. We can see that God values marriage very highly, and encourages widows / divorcees to marry etc, so sleeping with a non-virgin then abandoning her is not in keeping with the spirit of God's Word. We should not do it. But, it's not explicitly banned.
Add to that the fact that we have prostitutes mentioned on several occasions in the scripture, generally in negative terms, but never actually punished in any way simply for being prostitutes, and the fact that prominent men such as Samson slept with prostitutes without condemnation, and the whole thing gets even more unsettling.
That makes me as uncomfortable as it makes Aaron, hence his posting this thread, and me reading it very carefully.
The key passage that has been pointed out in this thread that contradicts this logic is
Zephyr and Wesley, thankyou, you are correct. This does mean that sex with a harlot = marriage. Which is initially confusing. How can sex = both covenant and consummation if it does not in Exodus 22:16-17?2 Corinthians 6:16 said:
I am still certain that sex does not equal the covenant in the case of a virgin, as explained above. I think that Exodus 22:16-17 is very clear on that point. But this is simply because the woman in that case did not have the authority to make the covenant, her father had to. Sex cannot be the covenant simply because the father wasn't involved (terrible mental picture, sorry :shock: ...). The covenant is always with the woman's head.
But a rightly divorced woman or widow is her own head (Numbers 30:9). So the covenant of marriage in this case is between the man and her alone. In this case, sex could constitute both covenant and consummation.
This means that:
- Sex with a virgin does not = marriage, because the correct covenant has not been made. Her father must still approve. But
- Sex with a non-virgin equals marriage, because both parties were fully capable of agreeing to marriage
What is correct? Is sex with a non-virgin discouraged but not banned, or is sex with a non-virgin marriage? Keen to hear any thoughts on this, because I need to get this right before publishing that booklet more widely than I have already.
Regarding the term "profane" specifically (ie "chalal" or "chol"), by my reading of the way it is used in scripture it appears to be the opposite of "holy". It often means "common". A very good illustration of this is:
Profane becomes something wrong simply when something that is supposed to be "holy", ie set-apart, not common, is "profaned", ie made common. The word profane usually occurs in regard to holy things.
- It is a sin to "profane" the Sabbath - in other words, to treat the "holy" day as "common" and do on it the things that would be done on any other "common" day. (Ex 31:14)
- It is a sin to "profane" the name of the Lord - in other words, to treat His name as any other "common" name (Lev 18:21)
And so forth.
I think this relates to sex simply because a woman's virginity is special, set-apart, "holy" in a sense. A virgin is special. To take her virginity away is to take away what makes her special, and make her "common" - ie "profane" her.
"Profane" does not necessarily mean sinful though. Just common, not special. We see that a priest is not to marry a woman who is "profane", but nor is he to marry a widow. Because he is particularly holy, he has to live in a special, set-apart manner. He can't just marry any old "common" woman. He's supposed to act out a model of holy perfection, marriage as God originally intended - with a virgin (Lev 21:14). As far as I can see, "profane" here simply means "not a virgin". A virgin is holy, a non-virgin is not. So he can't marry a widow, divorced woman, harlot, because these are not virgins - or any woman who is "common" / "profane" / "non-virgin" for whatever other reason. For instance, he can't marry a victim of rape, because she is "profane" - but that clearly doesn't mean she's a sinner. She's just not a virgin. I think the word "profane" is simply included to be a catch-all phrase meaning "non-virgin", to ensure it is clear that every woman other than a virgin is off-limits to the priest.
I don't think that the word "profane" necessarily says anything more negative about the woman in this passage than the word "widow" does.
The more I think about it the less relevance I think the word "profane" has - but the discussion it has provoked has caused me to think very carefully about other aspects of the issue, see my last post. Thanks Aaron.
OrEzekiel 48:9-15 ESV said:
Profane here does not mean sinful. It just means "common". There is nothing wrong with the profane place, it's actually where everyone's supposed to live.Ezekiel 48:15 KJV said:
Profane becomes something wrong simply when something that is supposed to be "holy", ie set-apart, not common, is "profaned", ie made common. The word profane usually occurs in regard to holy things.
- It is a sin to "profane" the Sabbath - in other words, to treat the "holy" day as "common" and do on it the things that would be done on any other "common" day. (Ex 31:14)
- It is a sin to "profane" the name of the Lord - in other words, to treat His name as any other "common" name (Lev 18:21)
And so forth.
I think this relates to sex simply because a woman's virginity is special, set-apart, "holy" in a sense. A virgin is special. To take her virginity away is to take away what makes her special, and make her "common" - ie "profane" her.
"Profane" does not necessarily mean sinful though. Just common, not special. We see that a priest is not to marry a woman who is "profane", but nor is he to marry a widow. Because he is particularly holy, he has to live in a special, set-apart manner. He can't just marry any old "common" woman. He's supposed to act out a model of holy perfection, marriage as God originally intended - with a virgin (Lev 21:14). As far as I can see, "profane" here simply means "not a virgin". A virgin is holy, a non-virgin is not. So he can't marry a widow, divorced woman, harlot, because these are not virgins - or any woman who is "common" / "profane" / "non-virgin" for whatever other reason. For instance, he can't marry a victim of rape, because she is "profane" - but that clearly doesn't mean she's a sinner. She's just not a virgin. I think the word "profane" is simply included to be a catch-all phrase meaning "non-virgin", to ensure it is clear that every woman other than a virgin is off-limits to the priest.
I don't think that the word "profane" necessarily says anything more negative about the woman in this passage than the word "widow" does.
The more I think about it the less relevance I think the word "profane" has - but the discussion it has provoked has caused me to think very carefully about other aspects of the issue, see my last post. Thanks Aaron.
FollowingHim said:
I actually wasn't going to address this because the entirety of both comments, in my perception at least, reminds me of a joke I once heard that ended with "...and Eve replied: "Oh, come on Adam. Do you really think He meant EVERY piece of fruit on the tree?""
Since I have been directly addressed however I will directly respond.
The Apostle Paul said:
The Greek word that is translated as "sexually immoral" in this case is "πόρνος" (pornos) which is the masculine form of the Greek word for sexual immorality.
The text book from one of my classes on ancient Greek said:
So yes, He does mean every piece of fruit on the tree, including sex with a harlot, sex outside of marriage, sex with a non-virgin and then abandoning her, etc. Those who do these things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
FollowingHim said:
The problem here, as I'm given to understand it, is that it means EXACTLY that in Exodus 22:16-17. They are already married in God's eyes which is why neither the man nor the woman has a choice in the issue. Any legalastic requirement such as ceremonies or dowries required by her father are only formalities and must be completed because they are already married in God's eyes.
Only the father is given a choice. That choice is based on Numbers 30:3-5.
Moses said:
In other words, in Exodus 22:16-17 both of them exchanged wedding vows by having sex but the father nullified her wedding vow AFTER it was made exactly as described in Numbers 30:3-5.
The fact that they are already married is communicated by the fact that he "must" pay the price her father demands. There is no other option available for either him or her. Only the father can nullify a marriage vow that has already been made therefore only the father has a choice in the issue.
We are down to a very fine technicality now, because we agree the father decides whether or not they remain married. Whatever the details of how they get to that point we agree on the end result, so this isn't a big deal. Having said that I am keen to understand the details as well as possible! So:
How could a man exchange wedding vows with a virgin woman who had no authority to make such vows? Throughout the OT we see every example of marriage of a virgin being an agreement between the husband and the bride's father, NOT the bride.
How could a man exchange wedding vows with a virgin woman who had no authority to make such vows? Throughout the OT we see every example of marriage of a virgin being an agreement between the husband and the bride's father, NOT the bride.
FollowingHim said:
Okay, let's break this down. Here is what I see in my (fairly extensive) study of the English and Hebrew languages.
Moses said:
Taking that one sentence at a time...
Moses said:
The woman has to be living in her father's household for him to have the authority described in the passage. If she's not living in his house then he has no authority.
Moses said:
She HAS the authority to make vows and pledges. This passage describes God's will for how to handle the situation when she does so.
Moses said:
More confirmation that she has the authority to make binding vows and pledges because if her father does nothing then her vows stand.
Moses said:
If her father, on first learning about the vow (e.g. marriage vows), decides to forbid her from fulfilling her vows then God will release her from the obligation.
One key point that should not be overlooked is the requirement that God "release" her from the obligation. If no obligation existed then she would not need to be released from it.
I believe that Wesley has an important distinction there, especially with the first part of verse 3. It would have been quite uncommon for a virgin woman to move out of their father's house then, but one assumes it probably did happen. I had been wondering if there was a point when marriage authority for a virgin passed from her father to her, and this does appear to address that.
I do disagree with the apparent conclusion in the case of a virgin living *at* home, when the father forbids forbids her upon hearing about her vows. It says "none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand", which means that while it was a valid obligation, it no longer is. To me that's akin to a bill passing the floor, but the president vetoes it. To me that does not simply mean she *can* be released from the obligation, but in fact that the vow does not stand, i.e., is not valid. I'm not 100% I've accurately recognized the conclusion Wesley was drawing, we might be in agreement on this point as well.
I do disagree with the apparent conclusion in the case of a virgin living *at* home, when the father forbids forbids her upon hearing about her vows. It says "none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand", which means that while it was a valid obligation, it no longer is. To me that's akin to a bill passing the floor, but the president vetoes it. To me that does not simply mean she *can* be released from the obligation, but in fact that the vow does not stand, i.e., is not valid. I'm not 100% I've accurately recognized the conclusion Wesley was drawing, we might be in agreement on this point as well.
UntoldGlory said:
Disagreements are a good thing. Disagreements cause discussion and iron sharpens iron.
We do disagree on the vows issue. I personally can't see how your government analogy fits either the situation or relevant scripture.
To me a the vow of a virgin still living in her father's house is like a law that was passed by Congress and signed by the president but can then be struck down but the Supreme Court, the father.
It is the law until and unless it is struck down and, in this case, the Supreme-Court/father is even on a time limit. He has to strike the law down when he first hears of it or else it stands inviolate and he will never have another opportunity.
UntoldGlory said:
At first I wasn't going to address this part. The Holy Spirit kept drawing me back to Matthew 10:32-33 however. So how do I do this without sounding like I'm telling someone that they're wrong and I'm right?
Please bear with me as I make the attempt.
My own personal belief is this...
The Apostle Paul said:
When does this end? There is no age of legal majority listed in the Bible. The idea that the obligation of a child to obey their parents actually ends at some arbitrary age seems to me to be a totally human invention.
Yet Exodus 20:12 says "Honor" not 'obey.' So the obedience must stop at some point.
Further, the wife is commanded to submit to her husband and no one can serve two masters. (Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13)
So when does the obedience (as opposed to simple respect/honor, taking care of them in their old age, etc. 1 Timothy 5:8) actually stop?
Moses said:
Wesley, I agree with your understanding of how a vow made by a virgin in her father's house works.
However, I struggle to see this as a vow she can make in the first place - at least while in her father's house (as UG has pointed out this is possibly different to after she has left home, let's stick with this directly addressed situation and try and nut that one out first before getting into the more speculative one of "what about if she's not in his house"). Every single example of marriage to a virgin I can think of in scripture describes marriage as being an agreement, first and foremost, between the husband and the bride's father. Every example I can think of being Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob & Leah / Rachel, Tobias and Sara (book of Tobit, Catholic bible), David and Michal, Othneil and Acsah (Caleb's daughter) - can't think of any others off the top of my head but I've probably missed some.
For an example from the opposite angle, when Amnon told Tamar to lie with him, did she say "only if you take me as your wife"? Not at all, she said "talk to my father and ask if you can have me" (my paraphrase). She did not even entertain the thought that she could negotiate the situation with him, putting it straight back to her father.
In every case, the father decides to give his daughter to the husband. This may be because she wants to marry him (Michal being the only example of this I can think of), but still it's the father's decision, and the agreement is made with him. I can't see a single example of a virgin choosing to marry and making an agreement to this effect with her prospective husband.
So although I can understand how you have logically come to the position you have, I don't think it's scriptural.
However, I struggle to see this as a vow she can make in the first place - at least while in her father's house (as UG has pointed out this is possibly different to after she has left home, let's stick with this directly addressed situation and try and nut that one out first before getting into the more speculative one of "what about if she's not in his house"). Every single example of marriage to a virgin I can think of in scripture describes marriage as being an agreement, first and foremost, between the husband and the bride's father. Every example I can think of being Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob & Leah / Rachel, Tobias and Sara (book of Tobit, Catholic bible), David and Michal, Othneil and Acsah (Caleb's daughter) - can't think of any others off the top of my head but I've probably missed some.
For an example from the opposite angle, when Amnon told Tamar to lie with him, did she say "only if you take me as your wife"? Not at all, she said "talk to my father and ask if you can have me" (my paraphrase). She did not even entertain the thought that she could negotiate the situation with him, putting it straight back to her father.
In every case, the father decides to give his daughter to the husband. This may be because she wants to marry him (Michal being the only example of this I can think of), but still it's the father's decision, and the agreement is made with him. I can't see a single example of a virgin choosing to marry and making an agreement to this effect with her prospective husband.
So although I can understand how you have logically come to the position you have, I don't think it's scriptural.
FollowingHim said:
It seems to me that obviously she can or we wouldn't need rules for how to handle the situation if she does.
I perceive that argument as being the same as the argument about polygamy. God wouldn't give rules for how to handle the situation if it was sinful. He would ban it outright.
The same logic applies here. The Bible does not say that it is a sin for a woman to make a vow, such as a marriage vow, while still living in her father's house. It only says that if she does then her father can nullify it.
As for how the marriage vow happened this isn't a case of marriage by rape. That's in Deuteronomy and Matthew not Exodus. She agreed to the sex act and in agreeing to the sex act she agreed to be married to the man she was having sex with. That's why uniting with a prostitute constitutes becoming "one flesh" with her. (1 Corinthians 6:16)
The Bible doesn't tell us this woman has made a marriage vow. In fact, no marriage vows appear anywhere in the entire Bible. God is giving rules about how to handle the situation if a virgin sleeps with a man while in her father's house. He is NOT necessarily giving us rules for how to manage a virgin MAKING A VOW with another man. You are assuming that consensual sex = a vow, I am assuming sex does not = a vow. This is not a case of "obviously she can", it's only obvious if you look at it with the presupposition that sex = a vow, and it's that presupposition that I am questioning.
FollowingHim said:
That seems to be the crux of our disagreement. I believe that sex = vow/marriage because sex with a harlot = becoming "one flesh" with her. (1 Corinthians 6:16)
- In my mind:
- Since:
- sex with a prostitute = becoming "one flesh" with her.
- (1 Corinthians 6:16)
- sex with a virgin = becoming "one flesh" with her
- (Exodus 22:16-17)
- Since:
I personally don't see how the two can be different.
FollowingHim said:
Once again, we disagree. This time for two reasons. The first is stated above.
Second, the rule applies to a lot more types of vows than just marriage vows. If a virgin who is still living in her father's house vows to babysit for her neighbor for minimum wage then the father can nullify the vow when he first hears of it. If he doesn't then she is bound by her vow and must babysit for minimum wage even if she later finds out that babysitters typically earn a lot more in her neighborhood.
So obviously the woman can make vows, of various types but including marriage vows, while still living in her father's house.
Agree she can make a vow to babysit, etc. The difference is however that she has the authority to do that - she can agree to work, help someone, vow to sacrifice something to God, whatever. These are all things under her own personal control. Nevertheless, despite having that authority, her father can veto them.
I see marriage as something different because it is a far larger matter that she does not have the authority to decide (at least the way it appears in the OT), it is her father's decision.
I can vow to give my car to a mission organisation. I can't vow to give my father's car to a mission organisation, because I have no authority over it. If I do give my father's car, that doesn't mean I have rightly vowed to give it away then he nullifies the vow when he takes it back. It simply means I had no authority to give it in the first place and was a thief. A law saying "if a son gives away his father's car his father may choose to take it back" would not at all mean a son had the right to give away his father's car. In the same way, a law saying that if a virgin daughter chooses to give herself to a man her father may choose to take her back does not at all mean she has the right to give herself away.
However I think we're at an impasse Wesley, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, we're going round and round in circles. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, probably best to agree to disagree and listen to what others have to say now before we fill 12 pages with this!
Does anyone else have any comments on my understanding of this issue, as put in the below post?
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4538&start=20#p47088
I see marriage as something different because it is a far larger matter that she does not have the authority to decide (at least the way it appears in the OT), it is her father's decision.
I can vow to give my car to a mission organisation. I can't vow to give my father's car to a mission organisation, because I have no authority over it. If I do give my father's car, that doesn't mean I have rightly vowed to give it away then he nullifies the vow when he takes it back. It simply means I had no authority to give it in the first place and was a thief. A law saying "if a son gives away his father's car his father may choose to take it back" would not at all mean a son had the right to give away his father's car. In the same way, a law saying that if a virgin daughter chooses to give herself to a man her father may choose to take her back does not at all mean she has the right to give herself away.
However I think we're at an impasse Wesley, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, we're going round and round in circles. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, probably best to agree to disagree and listen to what others have to say now before we fill 12 pages with this!
Does anyone else have any comments on my understanding of this issue, as put in the below post?
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=4538&start=20#p47088
FollowingHim said:
I'm not sure where I stand on that issue because that brings up the whole issue of marriage by rape, etc. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
- If the woman does not have the authority to decide whom she marries in God's law then doesn't the Mosaic Law about marriage by rape become a law of the Kingdom of God instead of just Jewish Civil law? What would that say about how Christian women are supposed to react to being raped in the 21st century US?
- If the woman does not have the choice in whom she marries then how does marriage by capture/rape work for the man? Is he sinning? There is no commandment that says, "Thou shalt not take a wife by rape."
- How does it work? Does the man grab her and throw her in the trunk and she just doesn't resist an evil man? (Matthew 5:38-42) Or is it supposed to work more like Christ calling Peter and Andrew? ("You there, come with me.")
- What about marital rape? I've always believed that to be sinful based on the Second Greatest Commandment but if we decide that a woman does not have the authority over whom she marries then does she have authority over when her husband has sex with her? If we can marry a woman by raping her then can the husband rape her again whenever he feels like it?
That's why I refuse to accept your dad's daughter = dad's car analogy. No, the woman belongs to Christ not to her father or husband. Man's laws, including Jewish civil law, may say differently but the law of the Kingdom of God is not changed when a king, president or congress feel like making a new law.
FollowingHim said:However I think we're at an impasse Wesley, I don't think we're going to get anywhere, we're going round and round in circles. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion, probably best to agree to disagree and listen to what others have to say now before we fill 12 pages with this!
On that point we agree.
Thanks for the response and for looking into this Samuel. I have been very busy and admit posting on here had become rather intimidating but glad that's resolved.FollowingHim said:
I would ask the question whether sex itself is intended to be a holy act? Due to the mirror image of our relationship with God. Or is that taking it out of context?
Aaron
Did someone mention sex? Guess it's time for me to jump in.
marriage is the physical representation of our spiritual relationship with Christ and it does state that being one flesh is as being one spirit. So, as God designed it, sex can be a holy act.
But, like everything else God has given us, it can also be made profane/common as with someone who goes sleeping around.
However..... even if sex where to be kept holy, within the bounds of marriage, humans being what they are, some will start to come up with their own ideas of how to properly regulate this holy activity.
You can't do THAT, it's supposed to be holy. You can't say that, it's holy. No negligees, no colored undies, no scented candles, no Barry White or Marvin Gaye, IT'S HOLY!
Hey, a little Marvin or Barry can sometimes help make the night, well, spiritual.
marriage is the physical representation of our spiritual relationship with Christ and it does state that being one flesh is as being one spirit. So, as God designed it, sex can be a holy act.
But, like everything else God has given us, it can also be made profane/common as with someone who goes sleeping around.
However..... even if sex where to be kept holy, within the bounds of marriage, humans being what they are, some will start to come up with their own ideas of how to properly regulate this holy activity.
You can't do THAT, it's supposed to be holy. You can't say that, it's holy. No negligees, no colored undies, no scented candles, no Barry White or Marvin Gaye, IT'S HOLY!
Hey, a little Marvin or Barry can sometimes help make the night, well, spiritual.
I think it may help to look at these verses from the point of view of the father and prospective husband. As with much of the law, a woman's rights are not the focus, but rather the result of the relationship of men's rights. (For an example, I'd lead a reader to Leviticus 18, where a great deal of what we know as sexual immorality is spelled out, specifically, in terms of men sinning against men, not even adressing the female side of the coin. The way I see it, just as husbands are responsible for their own sins and those of their proper wives, they are also accountable for their own adultery, as well as that of the women they adulterate. If the original husband can, at that point, divorce the woman, as in Matthew 5, he cannot be the one to blame for the adultery. It is the adulterer's fault.)
So. That lengthy aside out of the way, my point is, the men are the important players here, legally.
As I see it, according to Genesis 2 and 1 Corinthians 6, sex was designed by God to be the consumation of a marriage. The two become one flesh. I don't think anyone here wound take issue with that.
Now, regarding Exodus 22, it seems to me that the situation is not focused on whether the bride is wrong for accepting and reciprocsting the would-be husband's covenant. The issue is that the prospective husband has stolen from the father, and God affords the father proper recourse to take back his daughter. It reminds me, quite a bit, of Satan's role in seducing Humanity, and God's direct response of denying Satan's claim and applying Christ as the instrument of salvation by which he takes us back into His Kingdom. Also, the would-be husband still has to pay his due penalty for profaning the daughter, while recieving nothing for his affront, much as Satan shall pay for his sins for all eternity while retaining no claim on God's people.
Of course, if the husband meets the father's standards, there is no need for any such intervention. At this point, the husband pays as normal, the marriage goes on as normal... Nothing is wrong, as long as Dad is okay from the beginning.
So, I think that both Wesley and Samuel have some solid points. I agree with Wesley that a woman is, as a human, responsible to God and no one else for her actions, and thereby capable of making her own vows, BUT, I also believe that husbands are responsible for their wives, and fathers for their daughters, as the women are subject to these authorities by the designation of God, as in Romans 13. I think that Exodus 22 is specifically stating who, between the father and the "proposing" man, has a greater right to the headship of the virgin in question, directly translating to which one has a stronger claim in the uphoding of her vows.
To respond to the question of when should a child no longer expected to obey their parents, only to honor, I think that marriage, based in Genesis, is that point. A man leaves his parents and becomes one with his wife. A new family starts, new responsibilities replace old ones, and the head of the household should be beholden to none but God. This, I think, is a huge point of contention within families when older children may be, willingly or not, committed in a marriage relationship but, by reasons of age or law or finances or anything else, are still held, federally, as their parent's child and not respected as married. Speaking from experience, there is really no easy solution, thanks to the massive control that our culture exercises over families.
My referencing skills are not quite as sharp as you guys, but I will get there some day! But, until then, I welcome both scriptural correction and concurance.
So. That lengthy aside out of the way, my point is, the men are the important players here, legally.
As I see it, according to Genesis 2 and 1 Corinthians 6, sex was designed by God to be the consumation of a marriage. The two become one flesh. I don't think anyone here wound take issue with that.
Now, regarding Exodus 22, it seems to me that the situation is not focused on whether the bride is wrong for accepting and reciprocsting the would-be husband's covenant. The issue is that the prospective husband has stolen from the father, and God affords the father proper recourse to take back his daughter. It reminds me, quite a bit, of Satan's role in seducing Humanity, and God's direct response of denying Satan's claim and applying Christ as the instrument of salvation by which he takes us back into His Kingdom. Also, the would-be husband still has to pay his due penalty for profaning the daughter, while recieving nothing for his affront, much as Satan shall pay for his sins for all eternity while retaining no claim on God's people.
Of course, if the husband meets the father's standards, there is no need for any such intervention. At this point, the husband pays as normal, the marriage goes on as normal... Nothing is wrong, as long as Dad is okay from the beginning.
So, I think that both Wesley and Samuel have some solid points. I agree with Wesley that a woman is, as a human, responsible to God and no one else for her actions, and thereby capable of making her own vows, BUT, I also believe that husbands are responsible for their wives, and fathers for their daughters, as the women are subject to these authorities by the designation of God, as in Romans 13. I think that Exodus 22 is specifically stating who, between the father and the "proposing" man, has a greater right to the headship of the virgin in question, directly translating to which one has a stronger claim in the uphoding of her vows.
To respond to the question of when should a child no longer expected to obey their parents, only to honor, I think that marriage, based in Genesis, is that point. A man leaves his parents and becomes one with his wife. A new family starts, new responsibilities replace old ones, and the head of the household should be beholden to none but God. This, I think, is a huge point of contention within families when older children may be, willingly or not, committed in a marriage relationship but, by reasons of age or law or finances or anything else, are still held, federally, as their parent's child and not respected as married. Speaking from experience, there is really no easy solution, thanks to the massive control that our culture exercises over families.
My referencing skills are not quite as sharp as you guys, but I will get there some day! But, until then, I welcome both scriptural correction and concurance.