• 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.

Vetting a single woman.

Elijahsfire

Elijahsfire

Member
Male
There once was time when all man needed to know about a potential wife was whether she was Christian & single. Ok, it was never quite that simple but it is much more complicated now. Many single women nowadays claim to be Christian but hold very worldly views that would have been shocking just a generation ago. In response to this I believe we should compile a list of views/values a potential wife should hold. Furthermore, in the vetting process these view/values/issues should be snuck into conversations or blantentaly asked if you will. I hope to compile a list of "deal breakers". Please add to this as this could really helpful and help avoid "surpirses".
1. Must be a believer
2. Must be pro life
3. Must not be a substance abuser
4. Must be chast
5. Must not support LGBTQ
6. Must understand men and are men and women are women
7. Must not sympothetic to islamic causes or sharia
8. Must not identify as a feminist
9. Must recognize and agrees to biblical submission and husband's headship
10. If she works, she must not be career dominated
11. Must recognize the validity of po plural marriage
12. Must hold conservative political views or at least be apolitical and willing to allow you to help shape her views
.....I might add more and please add more....cheers!
 
FollowingHim said:
Various lists people have compiled previously are in this thread.
Click to expand...
That is an old thread, and I would hate to resurrect one that has been dormant for so long. Having said that, when looking at a single mom, one must always be wary of the fact that if she is divorced from her husband, marrying her while he is still alive, is considered adultery. (Matt 5:31-32) According to I Cor 7:10-11, she must remain single or else be reconciled to her husband.
 
Daniel DeLuca said:
That is an old thread, and I would hate to resurrect one that has been dormant for so long. Having said that, when looking at a single mom, one must always be wary of the fact that if she is divorced from her husband, marrying her while he is still alive, is considered adultery. (Matt 5:31-32) According to I Cor 7:10-11, she must remain single or else be reconciled to her husband.
Click to expand...
1 Cor 7:10-11
"But to the married I command—not I, but the Lord—a wife is not to be separated from her husband (but if she gets separated, let her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband is not to divorce his wife."

One way to look at it is in whole. She is a woman who left her husband but not divorced. Hence the telling of her to remain unmarried and the husband not to divorce her.

If you are just doing a plain reading of Matthew 5:31-32
“It was said, ‘Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

Then yes your correct.

This next statement is not directed at anyone in specifically.

Keep in mind then any woman who has had sex is off limits according to the plain reading of scripture because she is married to the first person she had sex with. So then according to the plain reading of Matthew 5:31-32 if you marry/married someone who is/was not a virgin then your an adulterer. Then to cast judgement or deny someone else the right to under the same circumstances would make you a hypocrite as well as an adulterer.

I hold that there is teaching of the spirit of the law in Matthew 5:31-32 and not Yeshua adding to the law.
 
Kevin said:
Keep in mind then any woman who has had sex is off limits according to the plain reading of scripture because she is married to the first person she had sex with. So then according to the plain reading of Matthew 5:31-32 if you marry/married someone who is/was not a virgin then your an adulterer. Then to cast judgement or deny someone else the right to under the same circumstances would make you a hypocrite as well as an adulterer.
Click to expand...

No, that is not at all true according to a plain reading of scripture. All you're doing is creating a false moral equivalence to justify contradicting much plainer prohibitions in scripture.
 
rockfox said:
No, that is not at all true according to a plain reading of scripture. All you're doing is creating a false moral equivalence to justify contradicting much plainer prohibitions in scripture.
Click to expand...
Sex equals marriage in scripture unless it was prohibited sex. Therefore a non virgin is married. Having sex with another man's wife adultery. An adulterer judging another for adultery or telling someone else they can't commit adultery (not that anyone should want to) makes them a hypocrite.

I'm not trying to justify contradicting scripture, because I see it differently that you. It's all about context. The way I see it your plain interpretation contridicts scripture and makes Yeshua out to be a sinner.
 
Leave AND cleave. Sex only meant you should get married. Whether you actually become married or not depends on the father. Your interpretation requires reading into the silence and is not obvious from reading the scriptures. Jesus's passage is obvious. One is not a hypocrite for pointing out one truth just because they don't know the other or agree with your interpretation.

All the more so if they were not guilty of said adultery even under your interpretation. Why do you assume they would be?
 
rockfox said:
Whether you actually become married or not depends on the father.
Click to expand...
I'm a supporter of fathers rights but they're limited to certain circumstances unless you read into the silence. Since that's something I'm being being challanged on for doing, it's not an acceptable to use fathers rights out side of the limited scope they are mentioned in.

rockfox said:
Jesus's passage is obvious
Click to expand...
If you ignore that in in the interpretation you subscribe to Yeshua is adding to the word, therefore sinning, which means he cannot be the Messiah.

rockfox said:
One is not a hypocrite for pointing out one truth just because they don't know the other or agree with your interpretation.
Click to expand...
That's not what I said.
Kevin said:
An adulterer judging another for adultery or telling someone else they can't commit adultery (not that anyone should want to) makes them a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


hy·poc·ri·sy
həˈpäkrəsē/
noun
  1. the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense.
hyp·o·crite
ˈhipəˌkrit/
noun
  1. a person who indulges in hypocrisy

rockfox said:
Leave AND cleave. Sex only meant you should get married
Click to expand...
Give a biblical example that defines marriage without sex.

rockfox said:
All the more so if they were not guilty of said adultery even under your interpretation. Why do you assume they would be?
Click to expand...
This is not my stance but where The plain reading only stance leads. There are times you can't use The plain reading. The plain reading interpretation is if you marry a seperated/divorced woman you are committing adultery. The word there is chorizo:sunder not divorce. To seperate from. Sex equals marriage. A woman is married to the first guy she sleeps with even If she's sundered from him, Matthew Plain Reading application. If you sleep/marry with non virgin (divorced/sundered) then your sleeping with another man's wife, adultery.
 
One of the main points I'm trying to make boils down to this. The Sadducce extrapolated the will of G-d from the plain reading of scripture to justify themselves, judge and condemn others. The Pharisee extrapolated the will of G-d from their interpretation of scripture to justify themselves, judge and condemn others. Both ignore the spirit of the law which is a path to walk in a pleasing way to the Lord not to condemn others or justify one's self by how closely they adhere to the letter. The same thing the Sadducce did with plain reading of the Tanahk many are doing with the Gospels.

FollowingHim said:
Can you give a clear biblical example that says "sex = marriage" or "if you have sex you're automatically married"?
Click to expand...
Adam and Eve if your a proponent of becoming one flesh means sex.

If your a proponent of one flesh means family/married here's how you become family/married to a prostitute.

1 Corinthians 6:16: "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.

Joseph did not “know” (sexual intimacy) Mary until after she birthed Yeshua. Before that it does not declare them to be married, but declares them to only be espoused, which is the marriage agreement made between Joseph and Mary’s guardian, and does not make a binding union, as does sexual intimacy. She was Joseph’s “wife” by the Jewish betrothal covenant which can be backed out of.

Can you give a clear biblical example a carnal marriage that excludes sex from scripture?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cap
We have a whole structured discussion section devoted to "What Equals "Marriages?" Here on the forums. It tends to get contentious, so Sam set them up as non-confrontational.
 
@Kevin (correct me if I’m wrong) is playing Devil’s Advocate. It’s not that he necessarily believes the position that he’s presenting, but what he is doing is presenting an opposing position and carrying it to a logical conclusion that exposes issues with the position.

I’d summarize what Kevin is saying like this: If you believe that marriage begins with intercourse, and IF you have married (or had sex with) a non-widowed, non virgin, the end result can be nothing other than you are living in adultery. For any man in this situation to try to be judge over what does or does not constitute adultery re: divorce is hypocritical. IF you do not hold these positions while being currently married to a non-widowed, non virgin, then there’s no hypocrisy.
 
Add to the mix that your current spouse may have not been as pure as she led you to believe! What two do? Divorce for false pretenses? God hates putting away.
 
Kevin said:
Sex equals marriage.
Click to expand...

No where does it say sex equals marriage.

Kevin said:
Adam and Eve if your a proponent of becoming one flesh means sex.
Click to expand...

It doesn't say that there either but rather...

Gen 2:24: Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
Click to expand...

Leave AND cleave. Sex is always part of marriage, but sex alone doesn't make a marriage.

Notice, God gives her to Adam (transfers authority and physical possession) and Adam exercises (claims) that authority by naming her. This is the same thing that happens in modern marriage when the father gives away the bride and the groom gives her a new name (his last name). It's not just about sex. It is a transfer of control when the bride leaves her fathers home and cleaves to her husband. Leave AND cleave.

Furthermore...

Deut: 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
Click to expand...

IF sex THEN must get married. The sex doesn't form the marriage, just requires it be created.

The same in Exodus 22:16:

And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.
Click to expand...

If you have sex with her, then you must marry her, unless her father objects. This is a very common logical construct. Sex is the condition, the trigger, not the action. It's not you had sex therefore you are now married. But rather, since you had sex you must become married (or more specifically in this case, pay for her to be your wife). It is quite clear what forms the marriage in this passage: "endow her to be his wife"; i.e. paying the bride price for her.

Remember the leave and cleave? If the father refuses to give her, she does not leave his house and she's not considered married.

The common modern case of a woman having a series of one night stands while Daddy does nothing is essentially the father failing to have a shotgun wedding. One might call it the pocket veto of marriage. In real life she's not married in any sense of the word and no one thinks she is. It's just a pedantic misreading of the scriptures. Even worse, you're creating a new sin in making the husband an adulterer.

Think about this practically. Traditionally a husband and wife lived together, and only lived together if married. A man and women in a relationship but living apart were boyfriend/girlfriend. And if previously married but now apart were called 'separated', a euphemism for 'waiting on the divorce paperwork.' Now granted its not that simple today, hence 'traditionally', but my point is to illustrate the common sense nature of leave and cleave; how it fits our every day understanding of relationships. Don't get hung up on this paragraph; the scriptures are enough to establish what I'm saying. I'm just demonstrating how what I'm saying from scripture fits the common sense understanding whereas the sex=marriage does not. I.e. Does not nature also teach you.
 
rockfox said:
It is quite clear what forms the marriage in this passage: "endow her to be his wife"; i.e. paying the bride price for her.
Click to expand...
I would like to observe a certain thing here.
Exo 22:16 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exo+22:16&version=NASB

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
The "to be" is in italics, so I guess it wasn't in the original, and if we remove the "to be", we have;
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife.

"for her his wife". That is quite different without the "to be".

I would add the thing I noted in the other thread which is that I am of the mind that "sex with eligible virgin" = marriage, not the more broad; sex=marriage. This is "marriage" in a biblical-legal sense. Blood is typically shed when a man lay with a virgin. It seems likely that her virgin blood is the blood of her?their covenant. That blood seems far more meaningful for making them married than the man paying the dowry or not.
 
eye4them said:
I would like to observe a certain thing here.
Exo 22:16 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exo+22:16&version=NASB

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
The "to be" is in italics, so I guess it wasn't in the original, and if we remove the "to be", we have;
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife.

"for her his wife". That is quite different without the "to be".

I would add the thing I noted in the other thread which is that I am of the mind that "sex with eligible virgin" = marriage, not the more broad; sex=marriage. This is "marriage" in a biblical-legal sense. Blood is typically shed when a man lay with a virgin. It seems likely that her virgin blood is the blood of her?their covenant. That blood seems far more meaningful for making them married than the man paying the dowry or not.
Click to expand...
I think we would need more original language experts to verify this rendering. I think it's interesting, but not a conclusive factor. Anyone better in languages want to report?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top