Genesis 2:24

[The Revolting Man]

Jason, one more again. One flesh equals marriage. I'm not sure how you get to the point of saying I think one flesh equals adultery. It doesn't become adultery until you add in another flesh. One flesh means marriage. Everywhere it appears in scripture is in that context. I don't know how else to say it. One flesh doesn't mean adultery. It's when you violate one flesh that you get adultery. I say that sex with a prostitute is adultery because she was one flesh with the guy before you. Then you added your flesh and there were two fleshes. The great, foundational law of existence, the starting point for all other facets of reality is that there is one God. In the sex act man represents God. When we have two men in a sexual relationship we are representing the Ultimate Heresy, that there are two Gods. This is why a woman's chastity is so important. She is testifying with her body that there is one God and that He alone is to be worshipped.

This is also why male homosexuality carries with it such dire consequences and female on female sexual contact doesn't get mentioned in scripture. That's a different conversation though.

Eristophanes, I certainly agree that women fall under different rules and standards then men and that many of the sins in their lives will be counted towards their husbands and fathers. I do believe it is forbidden for men to allow their daughters to become prostitutes. Leviticus 19:29 commands to not cause your daughter to be a harlot or the land will fall to harlotry. I believe the word harlot here is our old friend zanah which means it refers to only the listed sins, but would it be too far a stretch to say that 1 Corinthians 6:14 would then be included in that list, at least for Christians, and so fall under both zanah and porneia?

That would mean that there is a command for Christian men to not let their daughters be a part of joining the body of Christ to a prostitute. This would of course preclude those daughters being a prostitute. That's a little tortured but it is taking the passages at face value and not adding to them. It also implies at least that a practicing prostitute might not be able to be in a state of grace, if the body of Christ is not to be joined to a prostitute. By body of Christ I don't mean the church, obviously we are commanded to minister to the lost. But the case could be made that if we're forbidden from joining the body of Christ to a prostitute then Christ Himself would follow the same the guideline.

I think it needs to be pointed out here that no one believes that anyone else in this conversation is saying that prostitution is an acceptable profession for Christian women as long as they only service unbelievers. Eristophane's point is that he doesn't believe that God will indict them for it in desparate situations and I don't entirely disagree, although I don't think God issues many humanitarian waivers I do believe He gives women some dispensation to work inside the system that He set up and of necessity does not allow them much real control.

The point that can not be lost, and I don't think anyone has lost sight of it even if I question a few of the applications of it, is that God's Word must be accepted the way it is, without any additions, subtractions or editorial comment from us. We then must conform ourselves to what we find there, not try to conform it to us. That leads to some hard realizations that turns much of what we thought was the bedrock of western morality into the shifting sand of traditions of men. There's nothing wrong with the traditions of men. They can be useful guides and practical tips that help us lead a Godly life, but as Paul demonstrated, they must be identified as the traditions of men and then supported with scripture. And they can never be taught as commands or even imperatives or forced on another believer.

I know this is basic stuff for a lot of people here but I thought it might be a good place for a refresher for any newbies who might find this in the future.

I've enjoyed this to no end men and hope to be able to continue the discussion. The honest and humble debating of God's Law is a vital and very beneficial activity.

 

[Jason]

So Zec-

Paul was inaccurate? He should have said "don't you realize you are committing adultery"? Or do you assume he was only talking to the first guy?

 

[Jason]

E-

So. . . . . Your answer is "yes"?

 

[Eristhophanes]

It's when you violate one flesh that you get adultery. I say that sex with a prostitute is adultery because she was one flesh with the guy before you. Then you added your flesh and there were two fleshes.

This is where things come down to the point of consent. I'd like to reduce this to a single variable so let's say she was a virgin, she married and then her husband was killed, leaving her alone with her children and very little in the way of assets. She has no way to support herself other than by working as a prostitute. Because she is a widow she is not married and she is not a virgin.

It appears your position is that if she chooses to have sex she is choosing to marry and thus any consensual sex is the act of marriage.

The first question is whether she would be married if she was forced to have sex, in the same way as a virgin? This is relevant because if they can be raped into marriage then they do not have agency, so let's see if we can establish their agency first before we examine the extent to which that agency might take them. 1st Corinthians 7 comes immediately to mind as shedding some light on this.

" But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

This instruction is to the widows and the "unmarried." Paul makes a distinction in verse 34 between the "unmarried" and the virgin ("The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord") and he gave specific instruction to fathers in verses 36-38 with respect to their virgin daughters. Based on these two points I believe we are safe in assuming the status of the "unmarried" in verse 8 is that of unmarried women who are neither widow nor virgin. The first question is whether they, like widows, have agency and thus their consent to marry is required in order for a man to consummate marriage with them.

Paul instructs "let them marry." Implied in this is that the woman has a choice to marry and if so, whom to marry. Who is the instruction to? The church. Given the prologue of his letter, obviously responding to the church's confusion about his statement that "it is good not to touch a woman" it is reasonable to say he was instructing the church not to discourage or otherwise interfere with those women who had agency (widows and "unmarried") who might desire to marry.

"A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

Obviously the widow cannot be free to marry whom she wished unless she has agency. Therefore raping a widow (unlike a virgin who has no agency) cannot result in a marriage. Paul, making it clear in verse 39 that the widow has freedom of choice, places the widow in the same category with the "unmarried" in verse 9. The conclusion is that both the widow and those women who are neither widows nor virgins have agency and their consent is required in order to consummate a marriage with them.

This brings us to the second and most critical question. Scripture does not specifically answer it, but if you follow my logic I think you will be able to perceive the answer:

Does a woman with agency consent to marry if she consents to have sex.

If the answer is yes, we have now irrevocably tied her consent to have sex with her consent to marry because it can be only one or the other. Like being pregnant, a woman either is or she isn't. Either her consent to have sex is likewise her consent to marry or it isn't.

As I said, ZecAustin, it appears your answer is that her consent to have sex is her consent to marry and under this rule every eligible woman who is neither a virgin nor married (a woman with agency) is married in the act of having consensual sex.

There is a problem with taking this position, because it creates several conflicts with other passages of Scripture. The problem is that if the consent to have sex is the consent to marry, then by definition every prostitute is a married woman committing adultery. What is the purpose of forbidding a Christian man from becoming one body with a prostitute if all Paul is doing is forbidding adultery? Why make a specific rule for something that is already forbidden? What would be the effect of this rule on the rest of Scripture?

If prostitution is a case of professional adultery, why would there be a specific prohibition on cult prostitutes, which points to the fact that there is no such prohibition on ordinary goods-for-services prostitutes? From my study of Scripture one thing I have noticed is that God is not shy about prohibiting the things that offend Him. If God is going to forbid something, He makes the prohibition clear and unmistakable. I admit that it is an assumption on my part, but if women are to be subjected to the death penalty, I would think God would have at least provided clear textual support to clarify the extent of a non-virgin's agency and consent.

We look at the story of Samson in Judges 16:1-3. He used a prostitute yet he did not violate his Nazerite vow. He remained clean and the Spirit of the Lord remained with him, as attested by the fact he left his liaison with the prostitute and ripped the city gates off the walls and then schlepped them for many miles up a mountain. Samson obviously did not commit adultery with the use of a prostitute and it cannot be imagined that he was her very first customer because she was known to be a prostitute.

Further, if the consent to have sex is a defacto consent to marry, then every prostitute is guilty of dejure adultery and subject to the death penalty. Yet there is no record of that anywhere in Scripture and the case of Samson speaks loudly to the position that he did not commit adultery. Read Numbers 6, the Law of the Nazerite, who is dedicated to the Lord and is to remain Holy to the Lord and not defile himself.

If we take the position that a woman's consent to have sex is not her specific consent to marry, then everything stays as it is, no re-interpretation of Scripture is required (How do we explain Samson?) and Paul's prohibition on the use of a prostitute makes sense.

Therefore, I argue that a woman who has agency can consent to have sex and still not consent to marriage. Sex with such a woman cannot be the consummation of a marriage without her specific consent to marry.

I'll continue in another comment because this has run long.

 

[Jason]

"How do you explain Samson?" Ummm . . . . .How do you explain him killing a few thousand people when a Nazarite vow was broken by even being near a dead body?

"Therefore, I argue that a woman who has agency can consent to have sex and still not consent to marriage. Sex with such a woman cannot be the consummation of a marriage without her specific consent to marry"

It's funny how you have to argue this to support your position, but don't see the contradiction compared to Exodus 22.

So it looks like you're ready to say a Biblical Marriage needs not just the consummation of sex, but also eligibility. That's not that shocking, right? It's what you've been saying. It's ok to just say "yes".

 

[Eristhophanes]

Leviticus 19:29 commands to not cause your daughter to be a harlot or the land will fall to harlotry. I believe the word harlot here is our old friend zanah which means it refers to only the listed sins, but would it be too far a stretch to say that 1 Corinthians 6:14 would then be included in that list, at least for Christians, and so fall under both zanah and porneia?

That would mean that there is a command for Christian men to not let their daughters be a part of joining the body of Christ to a prostitute.

First, let's define our terms. We have a prostitute and a john. The prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is to the Christian john not to become one body with a prostitute.

The command in Leviticus 19:29 is a command not to cause your daughter to be a harlot.

First olive out of the jar: How does the prostitute join herself to a prostitute?

That was actually a serious question.

In looking at the context of Leviticus 19:29, I think we need to consider Exodus 21:7-11. "If if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do..."

OK, now we understand that a father has the authority to sell his daughter as a slave, into permanent slavery. Implied is that she may be redeemed and if she is displeasing, her master is required to allow her to be redeemed and forbidden to sell her to a foreigner. Hebrew women were not to be Dubai porta-potties, which is in keeping with the prohibition of Leviticus 19:29.

As a father, I cannot emotionally comprehend a father pimping out his daughter. However, I have seen worse things than that, but I personally believe Leviticus 19:29 is aimed at a father who would sell his daughter into bondage knowing someone else would handle the dirty work of the pimp. Knowing what I know of the world, that makes the most sense to me.

This would of course preclude those daughters being a prostitute. That's a little tortured but it is taking the passages at face value and not adding to them. It also implies at least that a practicing prostitute might not be able to be in a state of grace, if the body of Christ is not to be joined to a prostitute.

I agree that a man should not cause his daughter to become a prostitute, neither should he allow it if he has the capacity to prevent it. However, we are back to the issue of consent and this may get a little distasteful. If a father sells his daughter into bondage without taking any steps to insure that it will not cause her to be forced to be a prostitute, he has violated the command of Leviticus 19:29 by "causing" his daughter to become a harlot. She did not choose to go into bondage, her father forced her. Against her will should could lose her virginity and according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29 she is now married. Every further customer she is forced to have sex with is an act of adultery. But, wait- her father can take care of that little problem as well by annulling that marriage. She is now fully qualified to be a prostitute: not a virgin and not married, a slave without the capacity to consent to marry.

It is difficult for me to compare such a woman with a woman who is forced by circumstance into prostitution, but does so without being forced. The woman sold as a slave has no consent at any time, she is chattel property. Not so the free woman who, out of necessity consents to be degraded.

And I'm not even sure if we have a point to argue. Fathers, don't cause your daughters to become prostitutes. But that still does not forbid a Christian woman from becoming a prostitute in order to survive if things get that bad. Because sometimes they do get that bad.

But the case could be made that if we're forbidden from joining the body of Christ to a prostitute then Christ Himself would follow the same the guideline.

If it must be discussed, I'd like to save it for another discussion, but there are a number of things that I think no Christian should ever contemplate, but they are not forbidden. One is suicide. I'm familiar with this because suicide is an issue I have been forced to consider on a couple of occasions. To put it bluntly, if my choice is popping myself or having my last moments be memorialized with an internet video of my head being cut off by hadji's, it's not all that difficult a decision to make. Another is cannibalism. The plane that crashed in the Andes back in the 1970's? 'Nuff said. Rather than consider the ramifications of how Christ would deal with such an act, I am simply thankful that He is the one who handles that and I don't have to think about it because I consider that to be way above my pay grade.

I think it needs to be pointed out here that no one believes that anyone else in this conversation is saying that prostitution is an acceptable profession for Christian women as long as they only service unbelievers. Eristophane's point is that he doesn't believe that God will indict them for it in desparate situations and I don't entirely disagree, although I don't think God issues many humanitarian waivers I do believe He gives women some dispensation to work inside the system that He set up and of necessity does not allow them much real control.

Actually, no, that is not my point. My point is that Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are very clear. In the absence of a prohibition there can be no violation. In the absence of a violation, there is no sin imputed. I know that God will "indict" people for violations regardless of the reasons and He doesn't offer *any* "humanitarian waivers" on sin. Luke 12:47-48 says:

"And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more."

Ignorance is no excuse.

I agree that prostitution is not an acceptable "profession" for any woman whether she is Christian or heathen, regardless of who they service; but I see no prohibition against such and lacking a prohibition there is no violation they can commit if they are forced into such degradation and without a violation it is not a sin for them.

HOWEVER

I see no way for the church to avoid punishment for this. We are commanded to make our needs known and if that woman made her needs known and her church allowed her to prostitute herself when they could have prevented it, then (just to get started) they are in violation of James 4:17. They knew the right thing to do and did not do it. That is sin to them. Every single one of them. She's eligible to marry and if men will pay to use her body then why doesn't some man in the congregation expand his family? Oh yeah, I forgot. Because only his wife can feed the dog. Because her food bowl is so special that she'd rather see her sister in Christ out on the street, dressed in black, making her living working on her back.

The point that can not be lost, and I don't think anyone has lost sight of it even if I question a few of the applications of it, is that God's Word must be accepted the way it is, without any additions, subtractions or editorial comment from us. We then must conform ourselves to what we find there, not try to conform it to us. That leads to some hard realizations that turns much of what we thought was the bedrock of western morality into the shifting sand of traditions of men. There's nothing wrong with the traditions of men. They can be useful guides and practical tips that help us lead a Godly life, but as Paul demonstrated, they must be identified as the traditions of men and then supported with scripture. And they can never be taught as commands or even imperatives or forced on another believer.

"In vain they do worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

I've enjoyed this to no end men and hope to be able to continue the discussion. The honest and humble debating of God's Law is a vital and very beneficial activity.

I agree, and I agree.

 

[Jason]

Does anybody not get what you're saying? The essays of fluff are really not necessary.

Zec, you get it right?

As I said, he's being logical. It's only rational. If you start with the assumption that sex=marriage, then to be logically coherent you just have to keep going with the assumptions and allow the cards to fall where they may. This is what you get.

So . . . . . . E - it looks like you're ready to say a Biblical Marriage needs not just the consummation of sex, but also eligibility. That's not that shocking, right? It's what you've been saying. It's ok to just say "yes".

 

[Eristhophanes]

How do you explain Samson? How do you explain him killing a few thousand people when a Nazarite vow was broken by even being near a dead body?

Did you read Numbers 6? Maybe. Did you pay attention to the verse that answers your question? Obviously not.

"But if a man dies [because Samson just crushed his skull with the jawbone of an ass] very suddenly beside him AND he defiles his dedicated head of hair..."

So it's not just beating them with an oxgoad or a jawbone and having them die next to him suddenly, his dedicated head of hair has to be defiled in the process.

"Therefore, I argue that a woman who has agency can consent to have sex and still not consent to marriage. Sex with such a woman cannot be the consummation of a marriage without her specific consent to marry"

It's funny how you have to argue this to support your position, but don't see the contradiction compared to Exodus 22.

Jason, I have to argue it because I firmly believe (after more study than you can imagine) that it's the correct position. And you are correct, I cannot see a contradiction, but that's because it's not possible for me to see something that does not exist. There only two ways you can see a contradiction: either you lack understanding or you are choosing to misinterpret the text. On one hand it's pretty simple if you actually look at the text, but on the other hand, there's 1500 years of lies and tradition to deal with and on top of that there's the baggage that comes with learning that if I'm right (and that's what the text says) then a whole lot of people are living in sin.

Here it is, as simple as I can make it:

The virgin does not have agency, therefore the act of taking her virginity is the act of marrying her. Her consent is not required and this is proved by the fact that she can be married against her will and over her objections if a man seizes her and rapes her.

All women are virgins when they marry (unless she's one of the very rare few who lost her virginity to a close relative).

The non-virgin (meaning she was previously married) does have agency. Her consent is required in order that she be married again, which means you can rape her all day long and she still won't be your wife unless she agrees to marry you. (nb: rape is not an optimal strategy to obtain consent)

The virgin in Exodus 22:16 had no agency and her consent was meaningless when it came to whether she was married. She lost her virginity, she was married. Period. However, because she consented to the sex (regardless of whether she knew it meant marriage) she entered into an agreement with binding obligations. That allowed her father to exercise his authority under Numbers 30:5 (if he chose to do so) and annul that agreement. The agreement annulled, the marriage that resulted from the agreement was likewise annulled. This is not that difficult. There is no contradiction at all. Except with your feelings.

As I said, he's being logical. It's only rational. If you start with the assumption that sex=marriage, then this is where you get.

"then this is where you get" And that statement lies at the heart of the matter. Either I'm right or I'm wrong and it all comes down to what the text says.

Genesis 2:24 is not an "assumption" and Christ made that point in Matthew 19. Genesis 2:24 makes it clear that the rule is sex with a virgin is marriage and there is no other act, rite, ritual or ceremony necessary for the initiation of that marriage. That is a statement of fact.

If you disagree, you are free to rebut the exegesis I've presented. Jason, instead of feminist snark, let's hear your exegesis on this. If you take the position that Genesis 2:24 is somehow incomplete and something other than the sex that Genesis 2:24 prescribes is required for marriage to a virgin, please cite chapter and verse where such a requirement is found.

I think we both know that if you had something you'd have already quoted it in bold, because I have the feeling this is really personal for you. It sucks to have to admit that after trying to do everything right, you spent the best years of your life living in adultery with another mans' wife. Believe me, I know all about it.

Today, in 2016, that is the most important issue before the church. You've already displayed issues with reading comprehension so you may have missed it, but whenever I make the point, I always make sure that I include the fact that the father can annul an unintentional marriage even years after the fact. Numbers 30 contains no time limit to the clawback. That is very important if you're one of the estimated 9 out of 10 "married" guys in the church that had a wedding ceremony with a woman who was not a virgin, because it means you're living with another man's wife. It doesn't matter that she doesn't know she got married when she gave her virginity to some guy, but it doesn't mean you have to continue living in adultery either. Her father can annul it (Numbers 30:5). If her husband is an unbeliever, he can give her a certificate of divorce for adultery (Deut. 24:1). Or he can refuse to live with her, be her husband and support her (1st Cor. 7:15) and if that's the case she's free.

God knows exactly what Genesis 2:24 says and what it means. God knows if you're living with another mans wife. So that woman you're living with, she's no longer a virgin and if you didn't get her virginity it means some other man did. Her husband. And unless he's dead or he divorced her for adultery or her father annulled their marriage, you are most definitely living in sin with another man's wife.

All women are virgins when they marry. That is the big takeaway from Genesis 2:24

 

[Jason]

Numbers 6:6. A Nazarite can't go near a dead body. They can't even go see their dead mother.

The thing is, I'm almost sure you know that the verse you chose to cite is simply the one you can twist. As if putting "and" in all caps totally changes everything. You know the Hebrew doesn't say "and". You know the translations you chose not to use make it clear. And you know 3 verses up is the command itself, in it's simplicity.

You've been doing the same kind of thing with almost every verse you use, and then burying the twists in a long pile of fluff in hopes that no one notices. All while trying to be a "teacher" as you put it. Teaching us that fornication doesn't exist, and that sex outside of marriage is ok, and that raping a virgin gets you a wife. So I guess excuse me if I don't pat your back for it.


I will take it as a given, since you said as much yourself, that you agree that eligibility is a requirement for marriage. So we have eligibility, and consummation. The covenant part is the part you don't like. Except with widows or divorcees. You think they need to make an actual covenant, but virgins don't. So like, to heck with the fact that Exodus 22 says the opposite, but we can cover that more if you'd like later.

In the mean time, you've come back to the beginning prematurely. I thought we'd have more before we got there.

Genesis 2:24. Which says "and then God says if you have sex you are automatically married".

Except it doesn't. You can ASSUME it says that. And then lead yourself down to the conclusions we've identified.

 

[FollowingHim]

I agree that prostitution is not condemned in Torah, and that this is most likely to mercifully ensure that the woman who is forced into this through dire circumstances is not sinning. YHWH loves women so much that he writes many laws about how we are to honourably provide for them through marriage, or charity - and then even if we all fail in our duty and she is forced to do the unthinkable, He even allows her that to ensure she is provided for. The way this is all worded is amazing when you really think about it.

However, I don't think Samson is a good example. In addition to the issue around death that Jason has raised, he also married a Philistine woman, which was specifically prohibited. Yet he did not lose his strength when he did that. Whatever he did, he didn't lose his strength until the very specific visible sign of his being set-apart for YHWH - his hair - was shaved off. Why? I have no idea. But I don't think we can take any particular instance of how he behaved and use it to determine the morality of the situation.


The suggestion that a woman who consents to sex may be freed from marriage by her father, but the woman who is raped is stuck with the marriage and her father can do nothing about it, I believe is highly questionable. This is based on two key assumptions: (1) Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refers to rape, and (2) in that situation Exodus 22:16-17 is not applicable.

1) Deuteronomy 22:28-29 only refers to rape if the word "taphas" (H8610), translated "lay hold" [of her], necessarily refers to the forceful rape of an unwilling woman. The word itself doesn't mean this. It just means to hold onto something - or even to overlay such as with gold. It may imply to hold onto something very firmly, it is often used elsewhere to refer to taking over cities by force etc, but also simply to holding onto a harp to play it.
On the contrary, when rape is intended, a different word is used. Just two verses earlier, v26 refers to a man who "forces" a woman. This word is "chazaq" (H2388), and very specifically refers to forcing through strength. If v28 also refers to rape, why doesn't it use the word "chazaq"? Why is the weaker word "taphas" used?
We cannot assume that v28 necessarily refers to rape. It may just refer to a man holding a woman to have sex with her. It says nothing about force or consent.

2) Exodus 22:16-17 gives the father authority to refuse a marriage in these circumstances. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 never removes this command. Rather, it simply adds another - that where a marriage is formed under these circumstances the husband waives all authority to divorce his wife. It never states that the father waives his authority to deny the marriage.

I think it is better to read these two passages in parallel, as discussing the same situation, and each adding a greater level of understanding to the consequences. Taken together, if a man sleeps with a virgin without first obtaining the consent of her father, he must marry her unless the father disallows it, must pay the bride price even if the father disallows the marriage, and waives all authority to divorce her even if she later does something worthy of divorce. This all serves to discourage men from taking virgins without first obtaining their father's consent, while ensuring that women are not used and abandoned.

Ultimately, read together, the two passages discourage men from raping women, as marriage is less likely and the man has fewer rights following rape. But read separately with Deuteronomy only applying with rape, they encourage men to rape women, as that way he could ensure he got to keep the woman and her father would have no say. Would YHWH really be encouraging us to rape virgins as a firm pathway to marriage?

Yes, there was the incident with the men of Benjamin and the virgins of Shiloh, but even there there is no indication that the fathers lost their ability to refuse the marriages. On the contrary, the women's fathers were specifically asked to be generous and not use their right to interfere, given the particular messed-up circumstances of the time.

 

[Eristhophanes]

Numbers 6:6. A Nazarite can't go near a dead body. They can't even go see their dead mother.

A Nazerite is not to be *defiled by* a dead body. I put the word "AND" in caps because of your previously established problem with reading comprehension. Read the text a bit more closely. You are seeing only what you want to see. Because the text doesn't say not to approach a dead body, the text says not approach a dead body to be defiled by it. They are two different things. You know, kind of like a virgin and a non-virgin

I will take it as a given, since you said as much yourself, that you agree that eligibility is a requirement for marriage. So we have eligibility, and consummation. The covenant part is the part you don't like. Except with widows or divorcees. You think they need to make an actual covenant, but virgins don't. So like, to heck with the fact that Exodus 22 says the opposite, but we can cover that more if you'd like later.

Tell us what Exodus 22 means to you, Jason. I know exactly what it says, but you're beginning to remind me of a movie...

J: "Inconceivable!"

E: "I don't think that word means what you think it means."

I don't know whether you realize it or not, but you argue like a woman. You need to take a look at FollowingHim to see what an argument looks like. I guess this really is personal for you.

 

[Jason]

"‘Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body."

You really wanna hang your hat on this one? The verse has no qualifier. Just says don't go near a dead body. Next verse says even if it's your own mother or father, don't even go near one. But again, I'm pretty sure you realize this, and you're just hoping whatever audience you crave isn't paying too much attention.

And by the way, even if there wasn't a clear verse, even if Leviticus 21 didn't exist to be read beside it, your idea would have to hinge on the thought that while killing thousands of people in hand to hand slaughter, his hair never touched anybody. Lol.

What does Exodus 22 mean? It means what it says. If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the marriage price and marry her. If her father absolutely refuses to give her away, the man must still pay the marriage price for virgins. Pretty simple directive that tells a man "just because you had sex with her, that doesn't make her yours". Look at the context. The whole chapter is about taking something that doesn't belong to you.

In the mean time, if you're done trying to derail by calling me womanly and hoping that gets things off track, how about trying to defend your primary assumption that you've built this heresy around?

Genesis 2:24. Which says "and then God says if you have sex you are automatically married".

Except it doesn't. You can ASSUME it says that. And then lead yourself down to the conclusions we've identified.

 

[Eristhophanes]

"‘Throughout the period of their dedication to the Lord, the Nazirite must not go near a dead body."

You really wanna hang your hat on this one? The verse has no qualifier. Just says don't go near a dead body. Next verse says even if it's your own mother or father, don't even go near one. But again, I'm pretty sure you realize this, and you're just hoping whatever audience you crave isn't paying too much attention.

And by the way, even if there wasn't a clear verse, even if Leviticus 21 didn't exist to be read beside it, your idea would have to hinge on the thought that while killing thousands of people in hand to hand slaughter, his hair never touched anybody. Lol.

The text says what it says, but your view is different. You start with a complete disregard for intent, you conflate choosing to go near a person who is already dead with being next to someone who dies suddenly and you then try to bring in specific instruction for priests and claim the law of the Nazerite vow has to be interpreted according to that. The tragedy is that you can't even see that you don't know how to evaluate what you're looking at. But, it gets worse.

What does Exodus 22 mean? It means what it says. If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the marriage price and marry her. If her father absolutely refuses to give her away, the man must still pay the marriage price for virgins. Pretty simple directive that tells a man "just because you had sex with her, that doesn't make her yours". Look at the context. The whole chapter is about taking something that doesn't belong to you.

This is a perfect illustration of what I meant when I said you argue like a woman. Your phrasing explains your assumption: that taking a woman's virginity does not mean she's married. Let's look at the text and see how well your argument holds up.

"And 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."

Now, we need to examine the text. First, it's very convenient in the NASB that the words the translators stick in there that don't exist in the original text are placed in italics. So let's look at the text in Hebrew so we can get a handle on this, because there is a problem here and it all boils down to two words that don't exist in the original text. The two words that were added to the law.

In looking at the Hebrew text and comparing it to the English, notice that the words "to be" are in brackets. That's because the words "to be" are not supported, meaning that there is nothing in the Hebrew text to translate as "to be." It doesn't exist in the Hebrew text. You've got 1500 years of church doctrine claiming that sex doesn't make you married so it should not surprise you that you'd see the translators want to add those words, which imply that the woman is not yet his wife. They add it because that one little addition changes the entire meaning of the text.

You are making the claim that something else must be done to finalize their marriage, that something has not yet been accomplished in order for the couple to be married. You are basing that claim on something that was added by the translators: it does not appear in the original text. Then, based on two words that don't appear in the original text, you claim Genesis 2:24 CANNOT mean that a virgin is married when she loses her virginity, because of those two words that don't actually appear in the original text of Exodus 22:16.

Jason, have you considered your claim in light of Deuteronomy 4:2? You are asserting a doctrine that can only exist by adding to the Law.

After claiming the nonexistent words negate the meaning of Genesis 2:24 and indicate there is something else that has to be done for the couple to actually be married (one flesh) you fail to describe what that missing piece is, fail to cite any Scriptural support (other than pointing to the two words that don't exist) and claim that what Genesis 2:24 clearly says is merely an assumption.

Jason, what is this assumption you are speaking of and who is making assumptions?

Assumption: a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Assume: suppose to be the case, without proof.


Eristophanes: "Marriage is initiated with the act of having sex." Proof: Genesis 2:24 Exegesis.

Jason: "just because you had sex with her, that doesn't make her yours" Proof: Two words that don't exist.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Maybe we should scale this whole conversation back and look at each verse one at a time and reach a consensus about what each one means. Because we keep zinging verses out there and no one is reading the same way.

How about we start with Genesis 2:23-24? Let's parse it to the bone and figure out exactly what it says and contains and then move on to the next one.

 

[Eristhophanes]

FollowingHim

I'm working on a reply to you but you made a couple of subtle points and I'm going to take a bit more time to condense my response. Trying to deal with an implication can get messy.

 

[Jason]

I just quoted the verse. Guess you didn't realize that. Literally I just copied and pasted the verse, and took out the numbers, so that I could watch you not realize that and tell me how wrong my "interpretation" is.

Lol.

I don't interpret genesis 2 a certain way because of exodus 22. Anybody can read exodus 22 and see what it means. Just like everything else in the chapter, stealing doesn't mean you own it. Hence the father still in headship.

And I sincerely hope that no one is falling for the twisting. "To be" not being there changes the meaning? Do you not know how the language works? If you left the noun wife out there by itself, you don't have a sentence. It would say "pay for wife". Thankfully, Hebrew isn't a mystery language, we can speak it. It has meaning. And what it means is that he is not her husband unless the father says 'ok' and he pays the dowry. Even if the father says 'no' he still has to pay out the bride price.

I suppose you expect people to gloss over the fact that you're saying "pay for her [to be] his wife" (which is the common use of the Hebrew) is bad, and in the next breath you say "pay for her [who is definitely already] his wife" is ok? Even though that's your own special translation that isn't used anywhere else? Yeah, I really hope no one reading this is that blind.

Genesis 2. Your assumption is that this says sex=marriage. It doesn't. You lie and say that both "cleave" and "one flesh" refer to sex. They don't.

 

[Jason]

I think we're all ok with most of Genesis 2:24. A man leaves, cleaves, and they become one flesh.

Its the second part, cleaving, that is disagreed on. E says "cleave" in genesis 2 refers to sex, because if it doesn't, it doesn't fit his assumption. So here are all the other verses that use "dabaq" (cleave) in terms of human relations or human to God relations. Almost all. I really don't like writing a book. Then you can tell me wether "dabaq" means sex.

Here is what E says - "A man shall cleave to his wife. This is the physical act of consummation. The sex."

Here is how the Bible uses the term "cleave":

Genesis 34:3 " His soul was strongly attracted to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the young woman and spoke kindly to the young woman."

Deuteronomy 10:20 " You shall fear the Lord your God; you shall serve Him, and to Him you shall hold fast, and take oaths in His name."

Deuteronomy 11:22 "For if you carefully keep all these commandments which I command you to do—to love the Lord your God, to walk in all His ways, and to hold fast to Him"

Deuteronomy 13:4 "You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him."

Deuteronomy 30:20 "that you may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is your life and the length of your days"

Joshua 23:8 "you shall not serve them nor bow down to them, but you shall hold fast to the Lord your God, as you have done to this day."

Ruth 1:14-17 "Ruth clung to her. And she said, “Look, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said: “Entreat me not to leave you, Or to turn back from following after you; For wherever you go, I will go; And wherever you lodge, I will lodge; Your people shall be my people, And your God, my God. Where you die, I will die, And there will I be buried. The Lord do so to me, and more also, If anything but death parts you and me.”

2 Samuel 20:2 "2 So every man of Israel deserted David, and followed Sheba the son of Bichri. But the men of Judah, from the Jordan as far as Jerusalem, remained loyal to their king."

Psalm 63:7-8 "Because You have been my help, Therefore in the shadow of Your wings I will rejoice.My soul follows close behind You; Your right hand upholds me."

Is this enough? Will you still claim "cleave" means sex? That it has nothing to do with a determination to never depart?

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is why we need to talk about Genesis 2:22-24. I am fairly sure that cleave does mean sex. Is this whole misunderstanding based on your belief that cleave means covenant? Is that your claim?

But to take my own advice I have gone back and reexamined Genesis 2:24 and added in verse 22- 23 as it seems on reflection that both are a part of the same thought. Here is the passage in the BBE translation (one I highly recommend):

"And the bone which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman, and took her to the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh: let her name be Woman because she was taken out of Man. For this cause will a man go away from his father and his mother and be joined to his wife; and they will be one flesh."

Alright, so what do we have? First off we do have a father consenting here, God brought Even to Adam. Interestingly enough though, we do not have commitment from anyone since Adam didn't even know what was going on, having been asleep the whole time and not being informed of what was happening. Certainly he wasn't offering any commitment or making any covenant, at least not that was recorded. It has to be assumed the same thing of Eve, she, who had until just recently been a rib, is standing blinking in the sunlight trying to come to grips with existence. I can't help but be reminded of the passage in the Douglas Adams books relating the inner monologue of a whale that has been spontaneously generated in the upper atmosphere of an alien planet.

But staying focused on the subject at hand, we don't have a commitment or a covenant. We have a man and a woman "joined." This word, dabaq ( http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1692.htm ) is pretty straight forward but some other things that are said to be joined in scripture are; skin to bone, tongue to roof of mouth, hand to swoard, girdle to loins, and it is also tied to remaining on the land of one's tribe. It doesn't appear to be overtly sexual but I could be missing something.

So what then does it mean? Could being joined be Jason's covenant? I don't think so and I think there is definitive proof in another verse but in keeping in the spirit of the exercise I don't want to rope any other poor unsuspecting verses in just yet. For the moment I have to say that the two becoming one flesh happens concurrently with the joining. As far as this verse goes the joining makes one flesh. As this is the go to verse for defining and explaining marriage I'm feeling pretty justified right now, of course there are a lot more verses to go and some very smart men still have to pick apart my exegesis.

What don't I see so far? I don't see consent, or even a state of being informed so that meaningful consent was possible for either party, and I don't see a covenant. Restricting yourselves to this verse for the moment, what do you think?

 

[Eristhophanes]

Maybe we should scale this whole conversation back and look at each verse one at a time and reach a consensus about what each one means. Because we keep zinging verses out there and no one is reading the same way.

How about we start with Genesis 2:23-24? Let's parse it to the bone and figure out exactly what it says and contains and then move on to the next one.

Zec, I'm with you. But it's a giant hairball.

Before digging into what Genesis 2:24 says, there needs to be some kind of agreement on what Genesis 2:24 is.

The first of God's commands was "Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it." God gave Adam a helper, he named her Eve. Then God dictated the Law of Marriage to implement the first command. And, as always, there were questions. What does it mean to become one flesh? What about consent? What about the authority of the father? These questions were answered in Exodus 22:16-17, Numbers 30:3-5 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and Matthew 19:3-8.

It is very difficult to understand what Genesis 2:24 is saying about marriage without understand the consent issues and the father's authority. However, even more important is understanding what Genesis 2:24 is.

Genesis 2:24 is a grant of authority from God to the man to initiate marriage. That is important because there are two huge issues that are dealt with in the rest of Scripture that are not stated in Genesis 2:24, but the issues can't be understood without knowing that Genesis 2:24 is a grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage.

The first is that the authority initiate marriage is not restricted to a single wife. There is no restriction in the text, so no prohibition possible without adding one. In support, we see the regulation of polygyny in the Law and a lot of support to include God stating He had two wives.

The second is the grant of authority to initiate marriage was not a grant of authority to terminate a marriage once initiated. Bringing a child into the world does not grant one the right to take them out. But Moses saw that the men were throwing their wives out and he made a ruling that amended Genesis 2:24, allowing them to divorce their wives if they found some "indecency" in her. Which was ambiguous and created a "loophole" big enough to drive a truck through. So Christ clarified that point in Matthew 19, that "indecency" meant "immorality" and that settled that. Then, for the Church, Christ ditched the ruling by Moses and went back to the original model, saying "no divorce" for His servants.

And all those women of uncertain providence (maritally speaking) meant the issue of consent to marry became very important WRT a woman who was not a virgin and not married. But then the church came along and changed everything starting around 400 AD with Augustine and Jerome. They claimed their line of succession from Peter was "unbroken" and he had the authority to bind and loose, so that meant they could change anything in Scripture they wanted to and they did. So, we've got 1500 years of doctrine that's not based on Scripture, but on Pagan beliefs, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.

The most difficult part about this is there are a lot of "Christian" wives who would love to leave their husband's but they don't want to look like the bad wife who nuked the family, so what they really want is a good excuse. That's why we see articles about women who say "I wish my husband would have an affair." I can understand why Jason is so emotional about this... it's like getting diagnosed with cancer. He's in the denial phase where the patient calls the doctor a quack and refuses to accept the lab results. It's actually normal. Not pleasant to be around, but normal. And knowing the wife would use it as an excuse to bail on the marriage when there's such an easy solution just adds insult to injury. So, yeah, it's completely understandable.

Or has he always been like this?

 

[The Revolting Man]

You have a rare and gifted mind Eristophanes. You remind me a lot of another guy who used to be very involved here. He was also brilliant and his mind was a machine gun.

But for the sake of the conversation and for everyone who is reading this but not commenting, can we take a bite sized chunk and chew it for a while? What does Genesis 2:22-24 say by itself? We have plenty of time to bring everything else in. This verse can stand alone and still support the weight of all that follows. What does it say and not say by itself?