Month: April 2016

Bible Instruction About Sex: Virgins, Used Goods, Sluts and Whores

Artisanal ToadLeave a comment
As we’ve learned in previous posts, the potential for your sex life isn’t quite what the church would have you believe. You’re not limited to a single wife and it’s quite possible to have sex with a woman you’re not married to and not be in sin. In fact, what the Bible permits in dealing with the women of today is exactly in line with what is expected in modern courtship rituals… But that’s a bit of a delicate subject and we need to discuss it, because not all women are the same. However, the one thing you need to understand, first and foremost:

For a Man, the Act of Coitus IS the Act of Initiating Marriage.

In other words, you give your consent to marry and actively initiate the marriage when you choose to drop trou and engage in the act of marriage with any eligible woman.
We’ve already covered the concept that the virgin has no agency when it comes to marriage, inasmuch as sex with a virgin is an automatic marriage whether she consented or not; and likewise, she can have a marriage she has already willingly consummated annulled against her will by her father. There’s not a whole lot of women’s empowerment going on there and that makes feminists scream with outrage. It isn’t actually men they’re angry with, it’s God. They don’t like the place to which He assigned them, as women, destined to be under the authority of a man.
To really hammer that point home, if you were to do a serious read of Deuteronomy 22 (the infamous “rape” chapter) you’ll notice something interesting- there are only three classes of women mentioned:
  • Virgins
  • Virgins betrothed
  • Married Wives
Now, if you’ve been paying attention you’ll know that a betrothed (engaged) virgin is legally married. That is, she’s on contract for delivery of (her) goods at a date and time set certain and not to be touched until then. I suspect that for this reason she’s referred to as a “wife” in the text.
Outrageous as it sounds, not only does the crime of rape appear to actually be the crime of forced adultery, but there is another class of women that isn’t mentioned at all in Deuteronomy 22, for whom the crime of rape evidently does not apply. Notice there is not mention of women who are not married and not virgins. (Now do you see why I identify this as “forced adultery” rather than rape?) That would include the widows and divorced women, as well as any women who for whatever reason aren’t virgins and don’t fit into those two categories. The penalty for forced adultery is death, but since the virgin in verses 28-29 wasn’t betrothed, instead of the death penalty for the man who violated her, he has to marry her. Not only that, but he has to pay the father a hefty amount and he can never divorce her all his days. Can you smell that large and chunky stew of poetic justice cooking on the back burner?
But, what about the women who aren’t married and aren’t virgins? Is it a crime to force them to have sex? The best answer I have is that there is certainly an offense (see Leviticus 19:20-22) for which there would be punishment, but the death penalty isn’t authorized for such a crime because it’s not adultery. For a woman who is not a virgin and not married, it appears the crime of being forced to have sex against her will is only an assault on her person. For a married woman, it is the violation of family and by extension the community.
In a previous posts on Biblical Sexual Morality, we found that because the man is authorized to initiate marriage and the way a man initiates marriage is to have sex with a woman, there is no prohibition under the Law on a man having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry. Another man’s wife isn’t eligible to marry, so sex with her is prohibited as adultery. Likewise, you can’t marry your close blood relative so sex with her is prohibited as incest. For Christians, 2nd Corinthians 6:14-15 is another of those restrictions that apply only to Christians.

Do not be bound together with unbelievers

Christians are forbidden to be bound together with unbelievers, which specifically means marrying an unbeliever, but in principle it can also mean a Christian is not to enter into any partnership (business partnerships, for example) with unbelievers. However, for the purposes of this post we’re only talking about marriage. Since the act of marrying a woman is to have sex with her, it follows that Christian men are not to have sex with unbelievers.
How do we know if she’s a believer? Scripture gives us a handy litmus test, found at 1st John 2:3-6. This is verse 3-4:

By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him

Just because she says she’s a Christian doesn’t mean she actually is. If she is then her life should reflect it, and that applies to the guys too. As the question was once asked, “If you were accused of being a Christian, would there be enough evidence to convict you?” I think that was D James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries who used that years ago in a crusade, but I may be wrong. Still, it’s a really good question to ask.
One of the pearls of “manosphere wisdom” is “don’t stick your dick in crazy,” which is the secular version of what the Bible is teaching when it says “do not be bound together with an unbeliever.” As it turns out, the Apostle Paul didn’t leave it at that, because as we know, an unmarried woman who isn’t a virgin has agency- she has to consent to marry in order for the act of sex to be the consummation of her marriage. Which, as it turns out, was the “loophole” in the Law that allowed men to use prostitutes without being in sin. An example of that is Samson using a prostitute in Judges 16:1-3. In doing so Samson was not in sin and he didn’t violate his Nazerite vow (witness that the Spirit of the Lord was with him after he got done with her because he ripped the city gates off the walls and schlepped them for many miles, all the way up a mountain… maybe she wasn’t that great of a lay and he was upset about it).
But, as you’ve probably already guessed, there are plenty of Bible commentators who will do anything to preserve the narrative. They will jump through linguistic hoops and postulate plausible theories to explain how Samson didn’t actually have sex with that woman. That’s because they can’t handle the authority of the man to initiate marriage and the fact that the Law did not prohibit a man from having sex with an eligible woman. Did Samson bang her? Of course he did! And he didn’t do anything wrong when he did!

No Whores. Don’t Do It.

In 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, Paul closed that “loophole” in the Law, but just for Christians:

Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 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.”

The first thing that comes to mind in reading this passage is that joining one’s self to a whore is a problem because she is the problem and some even see a prohibition on women working as prostitutes in this. Yet, that passage has to be taken in context with 2nd Corinthians 6:14-15, the command not to join yourself to an unbeliever. So, don’t join yourself to an unbeliever, don’t join yourself to a whore. Now we’re ready for a beta white knight to ride in and tell us that Christ can do all things and He can reform a whore and turn her into marriage material. I’ll agree with that, emphatically, that HE can do that but you can’t. I respectfully suggest Paul was saying the same thing.
Notice that Paul is citing Genesis 2:24 and pointing to the responsibility that accompanies the authority the man was granted there. Yes, men have the authority to initiate marriage and marriage begins when you stick you dick in it, which is why you aren’t prohibited from sticking it in any eligible woman. But, with authority comes responsibility. The thing is, the authority granted for the purpose of purchasing a field to plow and plant also gave him the right to rent and just plow away without planting (hopefully, anyway). That, however, wasn’t God’s design. Genesis 2:24 specifically begins with the words “For THIS REASON” and Paul is restricting things a bit to keep Christian men on the track to marriage.
The book of Hosea specifically emphasizes the point that you can’t make a wife out of a whore, so why are you sticking you dick in it? Because your good, faithful Christian wife is busy turning you into an incel and you want to get sex and maybe inject a little dread game? GET ANOTHER WIFE! I’m sure some beta incel will read this and think “That’s not true!I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me,” as he lovingly glances at his New King James Bible before returning his attention to his computer and prepares to fap to porn. I’m not speaking to those guys because they’re asleep and won’t wake up until they’re ready. If ever.
With all that in mind, let’s talk about the different classes of eligible women: Virgins, used goods, sluts and whores. Some would say that there’s only virgins and used goods, but Scripture makes it pretty clear that the used goods market has some specific categories.
Virgins: The original marriage material, comes stock with a tamper-proof seal, designed to be broken with the first use. Break it and you’ve bought it, she’s now your wife, period and end of discussion.
Used Goods: Women who were married and for whatever reason no longer are. There are different grades of such women depending on how used they are and what condition they’re in, so this, like buying a used car, is definitely a case of “caveat emptor.” Now, because of current conditions under which everyone was lied to and taught that sex does not make you married, bear with me. Because women who aren’t virgins are in all likelihood married and don’t know it, and that includes the women who think they’re widows or divorced. Some women who think they’re single or married are actually widows, but in almost all cases they’re either randomly committing adultery or established adulteresses (Romans 7:2-3)
Widows: A legitimate widow is a woman with an N=1, she was married to her husband until he died. She hasn’t committed adultery and (unless she’s a black widow) she didn’t do anything wrong to make her a widow. She’s eligible to marry.
Divorced Women: A former wife, legitimately divorced for her immorality (unchastity), she has an N=+2 (we don’t know how many guys she committed adultery with before her husband caught her and gave her the boot). Still, she’s eligible to marry.
Be sure to write when you meet one of these women who were virgins when they married and are now either widows or legitimately divorced by their unbelieving husband for their adultery (or abandoned them for whatever reason), because the odds are that they’re few and far between. We start off with the fact that only around 5% of the women are virgins when they marry, but we’ll say 10% just to keep things cozy. Did they marry a Christian man? Using some general numbers and being generous, we’ll say that of the Christian women, only about 25% of them married a man who was not a Christian.
That means 75% of them were Christians and any divorce they have is illegitimate, she’s still married to him according to 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. If she was married to an unbeliever and she divorced him for any reason, the divorce is illegitimate and she’s still married to him. If he divorced her for any reason other than her immorality (unchastity) then the divorce is illegitimate and she’s still married to him, but this one could fit into the abandonment rule of 1st Corinthians 7:15 so it’s legitimate. Since women file about 70% of the divorces we’ll just say that *all* divorces by unbelieving husbands are legitimate, either for adultery or cases of abandonment.
Boil all that down and we have 10% (virgins at marriage) times 25% (married to unbelievers) times 30% (the ones legitimately divorced by their husband). That comes out to the stunning 7.33 divorcees out of every 1000 divorced “Christian” women are actually legitimately divorced and eligible to marry.
What’s the death rate for men, in general, between the age of 25 and 40? According to the Social Security Administration’s Actuarial Tables, right at 2.3% of them are going to die within that time period. So, if 10% of the women were virgins when they married and only about 2.3% of the husbands die young, that means only 23 out of every 1000 women married to men between the ages of 25 and 40 become widows and only about 3 of them are eligible to marry. By the same token, we can also assume that of every 1000 of these women who are unknowingly and unintentionally married, about 23 of them are actually widows because their real husband has died.
What does all that mean? Nothing, really. What it comes down to is the question of whether she was a virgin when she officially got married or not. If we guestimate that 10% of these good Christian girls managed to keep their legs crossed prior to their official marriage, it means that 879 of the so-called widows and divorced women are actually still married. I got that figure by multiplying the 90% who were not virgins by the 977 men between ages of 25 and 40 who were still alive. Yes, it’s quick and dirty, I’ll give it a 5% margin of error either way, but that’s somewhere between 82.9% and 93.9% of the widows and divorced women you meet are actually married and don’t know it.

WISDOM IS CALLED FOR

The problem with widows and divorcees is they’re emotionally bogged down in their personal narrative and have major official baggage. It’s far better to focus on the so-called “single” women and look at what we actually see out in the field.
The Good Girl (kind of). Married, doesn’t know it, thinks she’s single, low N-count (2-5), lightly used in adultery. She’s never had a one-night-stand (ONS), only slept with her boyfriend after making him wait for it, has never been in a threesome (!) of any kind (!!!) and will somewhat shamefully admit that she’s not a virgin any more. This is the reasonably good girl (most likely a Christian) that passes for marriage material these days. You need to help her with her unintentional marriage before touching her, but this is the kind of girl who (mostly) associates sex with marriage. This is the woman who will probably be most resistant to hearing the truth about Genesis 2:24, but it all depends on where her heart is. This one might work well for monogamy if she’s repentant.
Verdict: Lightly used, has potential for monogamy as a poor second choice to a virgin.
The Girl Next Door. This group represents the majority. She’s married but thinks she’s single and has a mid-range N-count (1.5 per year after she got started) of adulterous unions. She’s had a couple of ONS’s but mostly has only hooked up with guys she was serious about. She’s never been in a threesome but for the right guy she’d be willing. As with the low N-count girl, she’s got an unintentional marriage and needs help with that. Her risk, however, is higher than the low N-count girl simply because God is not mocked. Whether she knew it or not, she was committing adultery and she probably grew up in a church and at one level or another she knew what she was doing was wrong. She’s a slut but she’d be both outraged and horrified to be identified as a slut, much less an adulteress. This woman could be one one side of the border or the other between associating sex with marriage and associating sex with having a good time. This woman is probably not a good bet for monogamy, polygyny would be a better choice.
Verdict: Well used, but damaged goods. Consider carefully and test thoroughly before considering monogamy with one of these.
The Single Mom. Like the others, she’s married and doesn’t know it. She proudly shepherds her thuglets around to display the fact she didn’t abort them. In her case, it isn’t the sexual history so much as the tangible fruit of her sexual escapades that causes the problem. She will not be marrying you to create a family, rather, you’ll be marrying into her already-established family in which her first loyalty will be to herself, then to the children some other man gave her, then to any children you might give her and you’ll be dead last on her loyalty list. When you add to that the baby-daddy drama, you’d be better off trying to pull off a monogamous marriage to a batshit crazy party girl.
Verdict: Wisdom is calling, screaming at you: RUN!!!!! Yes, it sounds bad, but just remember that when she gets done destroying your life, you’ll be paying child support on another man’s child. Avoid single mothers at all costs: they are the worst of all worlds.
The Party Girl. Married, doesn’t know it, thinks she’s single and has been riding the cock carousel long enough that she’s got a high N-count. This girl has done it all and isn’t ashamed of it. It isn’t just she’s a slut (she’s probably proud of it), it’s that she’s unknowingly an adulterous slut and the only saving grace of the whole affair is her husband doesn’t have any idea of the extent to which his wife has cuckolded him. But, there’s a silver lining in this dark cloud, in that if she comes to an understanding of the magnitude of what she’s done she might just actually be repentant- as opposed to the “good girl” who will always rationalize the fact that she was “above average” in her morality. As if God grade on the curve. This is a woman who has self-selected for polygyny inasmuch as she’s demonstrated a willingness to share a guy with other women.
Verdict: Seriously damaged goods, completely unfit for monogamy, best handled only by experienced cat-herders.
The Quid Pro Quo Whore. As with the others she’s married and doesn’t know it, but while her approach to sex is just as mercenary as that of a paid whore, she doesn’t see it that way. For her, sex is a quid pro quo situation that’s “understood” (whether it be better grades, a raise, a promotion, drugs or paying the overdue rent) because that’s just what women do. As Sidney Biddle Barrows so famously said “I have nothing at all against prostitution. Some of the nicest women I know married for money.” Identify them as soon as possible and avoid them like the plague. They tend to be on the crazy end of the spectrum (NPD and BPD) and these women can totally screw up your life while feeling good about it. “He OWES me!”
Verdict: Don’t walk away, run. Avoid at all costs.
The Real Whore. “Please place your ‘gift’ (in an envelope) on the dresser as you enter the bedroom.” This one is specifically forbidden to Christians and Paul didn’t mention payment- he said don’t do it.
Verdict: Forbidden Fruit. You’re not Christ, so forget it.
As you’ll have noticed, the general rule of thumb is that if she isn’t a virgin then in all likelihood she’s most definitely married to the guy who got her virginity. Your first order of business is to determine her status and if she’s got one of those unintentional marriages, help her get rid of it. If you can and the marriage is terminated, carry on, you may proceed. If not, end it right there because she’s a married woman.
Seriously, guys, you either believe the Word of God or you don’t. Regardless of the woman’s sexual history, if she doesn’t care enough about what Scripture says to believe it enough to act on it, she’s just communicated very clearly that she’s failed the litmus test of 1st John 2:3-4. She’s not a Christian and since you’re not to be bound to an unbeliever, cut your losses and leave.
Next, we’re going to look at modern dating strategies and the biggest challenge to Christian dating: the boundary hunt.

Twenty-Four Words That Can Change Your Life

Artisanal Toad17 Comments
It can be difficult to teach children (and even adults) what the Bible says about marriage, but it’s necessary that they know right from wrong. There’s no guarantee that they’ll choose the right path and not the wrong one, but at least they should know the difference.
There are three passages of Scripture that deal with how marriage is begun. The first is Genesis 2:24, the foundational law regarding marriage. The second is Exodus 22:16-17, which deals with how to handle a case of marriage by seduction. The third is Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which deals with how to handle a case of marriage by rape. We’ll start with the general law:
24 words1a
So, there you have it. The actions of the man are to leave (not necessarily a physical act), because in the act of marriage he is starting a new family and he will be the head of his house; no longer under the authority of his parents. The man cleaves to his wife. Some translations say “joined to his wife” but the point is this is where most people get it wrong. The cleaving is the sex- the consummation of the marriage. We know this because this is what the man is doing.
Most people will tell you that the “cleave” part is the marriage ceremony, and they’re right, but it doesn’t mean what they think it means. You can call the act of penetration a ceremony if you want to, but it tends to be one in which there are no witnesses. The reason most people say the “cleave” part is the whole wedding ceremony with the dress, the stressed out bride, the controlling mother-in-law and all that… is because they assume the next part (becoming one flesh) is the consummation of the marriage. This is incorrect.
We know the “become one flesh” isn’t the consummation of the marriage because in Matthew 19, Jesus was asked about the grounds for divorce and He quoted Genesis 2:24 and then said: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” Got that? The “shall become one flesh” part is what God does and it happens when the marriage is consummated. The Apostle Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 and compared being one flesh in marriage with being one body in Christ, saying they were both a great mystery (Ephesians 5:28-32). Becoming “one flesh” is a spiritual joining that God performs, not the man.
But, does having sex really make you married? Doesn’t there have to be somebody else involved? Let’s look at the next passage, dealing with a seduction:
What we see there is the guy seduces the girl and she gives him her virginity. They are now married. Problem is, he didn’t get her father’s permission and maybe her father isn’t so enthusiastic about this marriage. As it turns out, Numbers 30:5 gives the father the authority to annul any vow or agreement with binding obligations that his daughter makes. She chose to get married and now she’s not a virgin any longer and she is thoroughly married under Genesis 2:24, but according to Numbers 30:5 her father can forbid that agreement and the man is not eligible so there is no marriage. And he still has to pay. In fact, he has to pay either way.
But, if sex makes you married, what about consent? What happens if the girl is raped? Surely that can’t mean that the girl has to marry her rapist, right? Nobody likes this, but as a matter of fact, sex makes her married even if she didn’t consent. If they are discovered (the evidence proving there was no agreement on her part) then her father doesn’t have an agreement of hers that he can annul and he can’t annul the marriage. In addition, the guy can’t divorce her all the days of his life. Seems that they didn’t believe in slut-walks back then…
24 words3
So, what you can see is Genesis 2:24 says the act of taking her virginity makes her married (does anyone claim Eve was not a virgin?). Exodus 22:16-17 makes the point that if the guy didn’t get permission from the father, her father has the right to forbid her agreement and annul the marriage. And not to put too fine a point on it, the consent of the virgin is not necessary at all because if she is raped then she’s married to the guy who took her virginity. If her father sells her into slavery to be married then she is married. If she is captured in battle and forced to marry then she is married. In every case without her consent. Period.

Objections and Arguments

In their desperation, many try to claim that the “he must pay a dowry” of Exodus 22:16 and “she shall become his wife” of Deuteronomy 22:29 indicates the marriage occurs at some future time with an official marriage ceremony with an exchange of vows and stuff like that. No, that’s what they want to see but it isn’t there. Ultimately this devolves to the question of whether the man actually committed to marry the woman. The claim that he didn’t is somewhat akin to him signing a contract and then claiming that he had no intent to enter the agreement. He engaged in a singular activity (sex) that permanently and irrevocably changed the woman (she lost her virginity) and the claim of “no intent” or “no commitment” is preposterous.
And yet you will see a plethora of finely tuned arguments trying to convince you that what the text plainly says just isn’t so. There are long, detailed linguistic arguments that claim, for example, the woman in Deut. 22:28-29 wasn’t raped because the word used for “seized” doesn’t communicate enough force to indicate rape. They ignore the fact that verse 29 states she was violated, the same word used in verse 24 to explain why the man was being put to death (adulterous rape). The word is also used to describe what Shechem did to Dinah (marital rape), what Amnon did to Tamar, along with one other occurrence of the same thing (incestuous rape), as well as the woman captured on the battlefield who was forced to become a man’s wife (marital rape). The text says all of them were violated and in every case there is a distinct lack of consent, which is the fundamental element defining rape. The evidence thus clearly demonstrates that a virgins consent and/or commitment is not necessary for the act of marriage to be accomplished.
Then it devolves to the man’s intent to commit. How many times have we heard something like: “Oh- so you didn’t intend to enter this agreement? Then you shouldn’t have signed the contract.” Everyone understands this because there are acts, such as signing a contract, that with the signature on the contract executes the agreement. A good argument is fraud, that they were tricked into signing the contract and not aware they were doing so because they thought they were signing something else. It’s actually a claim of negligent fraud and the response is “didn’t you read what you were signing?” It is a maxim of law that “fraud vitiates the most solemn of contracts” but the burden is always on the individual to prove they were defrauded into entering the agreement. However, this is modern law. Other than the father’s authority and responsibility to review his daughters agreements and approve of them or nullify them as he sees fit, the Bible has no provision for annulling a marriage after it has begun.
This is EXACTLY the claim Jacob could have made with his marriage to Leah, but he didn’t because he knew he was now married to her. The text clearly says her father (Laban) tricked him into the marriage and by the time he discovered she was not Rachel (the next morning) he had already consummated the marriage to her and they were married. Had Jacob discovered this trickery before he actually married her by engaging in the act of marriage he could have returned the virgin Leah to her father and demanded his proper bride. But that didn’t happen and he married Leah with the physical act of consummation.
“You say you didn’t intend to marry her… that you didn’t actually commit to the marriage? It doesn’t work that way. If you had no intention of marrying her you never should have taken her virginity. You are now married because you willingly performed the act of marriage with her and that act cannot be reversed.”
Understand the context of Exodus 22:16-17. Everybody knew the law regarding marriage, that sex made you married because it was literally the consummation of the marriage. Likewise, everybody understood that the groom had to pay her father a bride-price. So, what happens if the guy avoids Dad, sneaks in, seduces the daughter and chango-presto they’re married. He didn’t have an agreement with the father, so should he have to pay for her? Moses said yes. And not only that, but if the father says “NO” and forbids the marriage (“absolutely refuses to give her“) then he still has to pay. So there.
The “she shall become his wife” of Deuteronomy 22:29 is even easier to deal with. Go back to Genesis 2:24, where we have the man consummating the marriage and God making them one flesh. When, pray tell, did God make them to become one flesh? In the act of consummation or at some future point? The phrase “they shall become one flesh” is an imperative statement. It’s happened, right now, and there is no way to change it. We see the same thing with “she shall become his wife” in Deuteronomy 22:29. The father cannot annul the marriage because there was no agreement and they are married, right now, it’s happened and nothing will change that.
VIRGIN = Marriage Material. You break it, you bought it.

Can You Explain Biblical Sexual Morality?

Artisanal Toad4 Comments
Sexual morality isn’t something that’s really taught, per se, it’s something we pick up by osmosis and observation over time. That’s a shame, because there are some really interesting points in the Bible that are contradicted by what “everybody knows” (which just happens to be wrong).

Can a person have sex outside the bounds of marriage? Is it a sin if they do?

  • If a virgin woman has sex, the act of having sex is her wedding. She’s now married and has not committed any sin (sex is the act of marriage whether she consents or not (Genesis 2:24; Exodus 22:16-17; Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
  • If a virgin woman who is engaged has sex with her fiance prior to the wedding date, she and her husband are not married, but they violated their wedding agreement with premarital sex. The man has sinned by violating his word (Numbers 30:2)
  • If a non-virgin woman consents to being married and has sex with a man she’s eligible to marry, the act of having sex is her wedding. She’s now married and has not committed any sin (her consent is required-1st Corinthians 7:39; sex is the act of marriage-Genesis 2:24)
  • If a non-virgin woman has sex with a man she’s eligible to marry but has not consented to marry, she is not married and neither is she in sin (falls under the man’s authority to have sex with any woman he’s eligible to marry because he’s authorized to initiate marriage and sex is the act of marriage).
  • If a married woman has sex with any man other than her husband, she’s committed adultery (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20)
  • A man, married or not, has the authority to initiate marriage and that authority isn’t limited to a single wife. Because of that, the man can have sex with any woman he is eligible to marry and it is not a sin (Genesis 2:24).
  • If a man has sex with another man’s wife or fiancee, he commits adultery (Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 18:20; Deuteronomy 22:23-24).
There you have it. The whole thing about “sex only in marriage” isn’t true. Now, having said that, we live in a land overrun with adulterous sluts. Yes, they know they’re sluts, but they don’t know they are committing adultery because they don’t know they’re married. The reason is they were taught “Sex doesn’t make you married. You have to have a wedding ceremony.”
Homosexuality: Leviticus 18:22 says that if a man lies with a man as with a woman, it’s an abomination. Leviticus 20:13 says the penalty for doing so is death. However, there is not one word in all of Scripture about women having sex with women. So-called “lesbian” sex is like masturbation- it isn’t mentioned anywhere. Well, almost anywhere.
One of the points at which polygyny is regulated in the Law is Leviticus 18:17-18. Look at what we find here:

17 You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness.
18 You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister to be a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.

These two verses come at the tail end of the statutes on INCEST. Think about it. A man is forbidden to take as a wife any close relative, so the man can’t be committing incest with the women, so it’s the women committing incest. How would that happen? The presumption is the husband will have them in bed together and there will be sexual contact between the women, something that isn’t prohibited. It is for this reason that a mother-daughter, a grandmother-granddaughter or a pair of sisters are forbidden as wives, because they are blood relatives and such presumed sexual contact would be incest.
Take away point? The Bible presumes there will be sexual contact between the women in a polygynous marriage. And God is OK with that.
But, most people don’t know that and some people claim (a lot of them, actually) that because the Law said men with men is prohibited, that it also means that women with women is prohibited. That isn’t true and we know it’s not true because in Leviticus 18:22-23, God forbid:
  1. Men with Men
  2. Men with Animals
  3. Women with Animals.
  4. ***** Women with Women isn’t here *****
Notice that women with women is missing and the fact that in the same passage and in the same context God specifically forbid women with animals. The same thing happened again over in Leviticus 20 where the death penalty was given for these three violations, but again women with women was not mentioned and that is significant.
The reason it’s significant is Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 essentially say “Where there is no law prohibiting something, there can be no violation and with no violation there is no sin.” That means if God didn’t decide to prohibit something it isn’t a sin for everybody. And just to keep the playing field level, Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids adding to the Law or subtracting from it. In other words, the Law cannot be changed. That command was repeated at Deuteronomy 12:32 just in case anyone missed it.
Speaking of homosexuality and bestiality, there is one thing that married couples commonly do that’s in the same category along with incest and adultery too: Leviticus 18:19 forbids sex with the wife while she’s menstruating. No finger painting allowed.
There you have it. Lots more sexual opportunities for men and unmarried non-virgin women than traditional Christian sexual morality presumes. And if you bang your wife while she’s on her period, that’s right up there with incest, bestiality and adultery. On the other hand, whatever women might do together isn’t a problem. At all.
Since this stuff isn’t really taught, I have prepared a handy-dandy chart that explains the ins and outs of Biblical Sexual Morality. I call it the “Big Picture” because it’s kind of big. Printed out it’s 32×54 inches. Save it to your computer and use something like the Windows Live Photo Viewer so you can zoom in and out easily.

How Marriage Begins, According To God.

Artisanal Toad17 Comments
The very best book I ever read on Bible Prophesy was “The Sign” by Robert Van Kampen. According to the author, it started out as a huge cork-board on which they stuck 3×5 cards with every end-times prophesy and worked to arrange them so they all made complete sense with no disagreement among themselves or with the rest of Scripture. When it was finished, they had a new “position” on the rapture that had never been put forward before: “pre-wrath.” Because the complete synthesis of all the prophesies conflicted with just about every denominational teaching and doctrine, the book was not well received.
The only way to put it is that he was damned with faint praise. All the major groups praised his scholarship and promptly forgot about him because they didn’t want to get into an argument they were going to lose. That left the anklebiters and they’ve been attacking his position for years. Everyone has to come up with an argument for why he’s wrong in order to support their own incorrect doctrine. It’s not hard because so very few even read their Bibles.
I took the same idea and applied it to sexual morality and marriage. I am not an extremely wealthy businessman with the largest private collection of Biblical-era manuscripts in the world and a large group of very intelligent people to help me. I’m just one man. Which is probably why the project made it as far as it did, because as contentious as Biblical prophesy is… it’s nothing compared to the contentiousness of sexual morality, which includes “premarital” sex, prostitution, marriage (monogamy and polygamy), adultery, divorce; as well as all the other issues the Bible covers in its instruction on sexual morality.
My hermeneutics are basic and conservative, just as his were. Sola Scriptura to begin with because Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture. Sensus Literalis was the next, which means that while we leave room for obvious figures of speech and metaphor, Scripture is to be taken in the literal sense. The third is that the implicit is to be interpreted by the explicit rather than the explicit by the implicit, not the other way around. Finally, obscure passages are to be interpreted by clear passages. If one passage is obscure, it’s a pretty sure bet that in some other part of the Bible the same point or issue is made clear. Scripture stands or falls as a whole and must be interpreted in such a way that it is completely in agreement with the entire Word of God.
This is the core of a much larger poster for teaching, linked to at the bottom. It’s still in somewhat of a state of flux as information gets shifted around, but you will rarely see Scripture laid out like this. Click on the image and you’ll get the full-sized view of the center of my digital corkboard.
That’s the center section of the chart, to give you an idea of what it looks like. This includes citation, analysis and exegesis, as well as church history to explain how things got the way they are, plus word studies. As I said, it’s not done yet and there are typos. It still needs work and keep in mind that it’s rather large. This is the .png file version, if you desire a copy of the .tif file to print, ask for it in the comment section.

Did Jesus Really Say A Man Commits Adultery If He Marries A Divorced Woman?

Artisanal Toad12 Comments
This is a response to Don Quixote I made on Dalrock’s blog. We were discussing divorce and Don invited me to examine his views on his blog, so I responded. This post has been edited a bit from what I posted on Dalrock’s blog because after reading it again I decided it wasn’t complete. If you look at Don’s blog, you’ll see that he and I disagree on a few very substantial matters, chief of which is the subject of the technicalities concerning divorce. I am in agreement with him that for two Christians who are married to each other there is no divorce, but from that point we part ways.
Our basic disagreement consists of three points. First, Don takes the position of the church that consent makes marriage, not consummation. Second, Don’s position is that not even a legitimate divorce specifically permitted in Scripture will free a man or woman from marriage, because he contends that a divorce can only occur during the betrothal period. Third, Don does not think a woman can commit adultery during the period of her betrothal. I say this to point out that while we disagree on what Scripture actually says, I think we agree that marriage is meant to be for life.
On his blog Don said:
If in 1Cor. 7:15 the apostle Paul gives grounds for divorce and remarriage, then he blatantly contradicts himself in 1Cor.7:39 and again in Rom. 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. And contradicts the ‘whosoever’ doctrine of Jesus.
The problem is the Apostle Paul *did* give grounds for divorce for those unequally yoked which allowed for remarriage in 1st Corinthians 7:15 and there is no contradiction with the rest of the text. I perceive the antinomy he identified is the result of several issues, chief of which is his misunderstanding of divorce which is his misunderstanding of what Scripture actually says about marriage. It is practically impossible to understand what Scripture says about divorce without first understanding what marriage is, how it begins, who has the authority to initiate marriage and how a marriage is begun. The problem is almost everything taught by the church about marriage is a lie.
The people who are responsible for this situation were some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived and they dedicated their lives to study in an era unencumbered by electronic distractions. They tinkered with their doctrine for about a thousand years and in some cases they modified the translation of Scripture to suit their ends. The doctrines they laid down were so pervasive and culturally accepted that translators found it very difficult to not default to the established doctrines when they translated the text.
[NB: Some translation problems were honest mistakes, especially in the King James version, because for that translation the text was translated first from Greek into Latin and then translated from Latin into English or German. It wasn’t until a hundred years later that we got the first Greek to English lexicon (the Liddle Scott James), but the fact remains that the translators sometimes had to choose what they thought was the best interpretation of words that have different variations in meaning. In those cases their presumptions and biases induced by their culture had an impact.
Consider that we are talking about translating from what are for all intents and purposes “dead” languages in which there is no-one with native fluency who can explain slang and idioms. While the translators have done a fantastic job, it is a fact that cultural bias and the widespread teachings of the church have impacted the translation.]
The book of Deuteronomy is somewhat misunderstood. Some call it a sermon, some call it a restatement of the Law and some call it the last message from Moses to the people. It’s all of that and more, but one key point needs to be made about Deuteronomy and that is this; many of the passages in Deuteronomy represent judgments that Moses made while sitting as the judge of Israel. The concept is known as “stare decisis” which means ‘once decided, always decided.” Deuteronomy 21:15-16 and 24:1-4 are both good examples of these, as is the entire chapter of Deuteronomy 22. I can point to many others, but suffice to say that *because* these were the judgments that Moses made, they became part of the Law and the Law cannot be changed. We must take it as an article of faith that God intended these judgments, or at worst, that God permitted them. In any case, it is part of God’s Law. However, these judgments offer tremendous insight into what the various statements of the Law mean and we can infer a great deal in seeing how they were applied.
We must also keep in mind who Moses was (the man who spoke to God face to face) and what his authority was (leader and judge of Israel). Lest anyone think that I am claiming that Moses made mistakes in the Law, I am not. Sometimes things go off course from the original plan, as is the case of the judgment on divorce, but Moses was the servant of the Lord and God backed him up completely.
As I’ve already pointed out, Genesis 2:24 is the authority to initiate marriage, it is granted to the man (and no other person or group), it is not limited (polygyny is permitted) and it does not contain the authority to end a marriage, only to begin one(1).
On the subject of divorce, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Moses gave his judgment, sitting as the judge of Israel. We know this was a judgment of Moses because of the statement by Jesus in Matthew 19:8“Moses permitted you…” Jesus was the Word made flesh and He knew God’s will better than any person ever born. When asked what the grounds for divorce were He cited Genesis 2:24 and pointed to the lack of authority to end a marriage. The Pharisees brought up the judgment of Moses and Jesus pointed out “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” That means two things:
1st, He made a statement that divorce was not part of God’s original plan.
2nd, He acknowledged that under the Law, divorce is permitted.
Then, He gave the famous “exception” that just about everybody gets wrong because of the doctrines they’ve been taught. Not because they’re stupid or because they don’t study. The problem is somewhat akin to reading a map. First, you orient the map to the terrain. Once that’s done you can take your bearings, plot your course and do what you need to do. However, what just about everyone overlooks, because it is so basic, is the legend on the map is the guide for interpreting everything on the map. Change the legend and while everything appears to work, you don’t understand what you’re looking at and wind up making wrong decisions. Especially if there is a strong emotional desire to believe the legend.
This is what Jesus said:
He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Matthew 19:8-10
In this passage Jesus was responding within the context of the discussion to what Moses said in Deuteronomy 24:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house…” Deuteronomy 24:1
The two prevailing schools of thought at that time were of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai; with Hillel claiming divorce was permissible for virtually any reason at all and Shammai claiming that it was only justifiable in cases of serious transgressions. Jesus explained what Moses said in the strictest terms, saying “If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’…”
I won’t go over the definition of porneia again, but a good proxy in English is “marital unfaithfulness.” Look at the structure of the language Jesus used: IF a man divorces his wife [for any cause] EXCEPT for marital unfaithfulness, THEN… Structurally, we see there is a differentiation between those divorces for marital unfaithfulness and all other divorces. With respect to the “all other divorces” group, Jesus said
“and marries another woman [he] commits adultery.”
Here’s the first problem with what we see. Adultery is a crime that requires a married woman and without a married woman there can be no adultery. So, the ONLY way the man who is in the group of “all other divorces” can be committing adultery is if the woman he marries is someone else’s wife.
Please keep in mind that Jesus could NOT change the Law without being in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. Transgressing that command would have been a sin, which would mean He wasn’t the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus was NOT making any change to the Law by creating some new definition of adultery. K?
That point is critical. Jesus was NOT introducing something new here. Yet, there is another problem with the text, in that going by the early manuscripts, there are actually three versions of this text:
1.“If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ and marries another woman [he] commits adultery.”
2.“If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ he makes her commit adultery.”
3.“If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ he makes her commit adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”
I believe there is a reason that #1 is the preferred choice of translators, because what it says in English supported false church doctrine that forbid a man from having more than one wife. Still, the meaning becomes clear if we look carefully at the context (talking about all the cases in which the woman was divorced for some reason OTHER than ‘porneia’) and then look at the word “another” to see what it means. That word, in Greek, is “allos” (Strong’s 243) and it is defined as:
“another of the same kind; another of a similar type.”
Knowing that adultery is a crime in which a married woman is required, the text tells us:
• A woman divorced for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness is not legitimately divorced, she is still married.
• Such an illegitimately divorced woman commits adultery if she marries another man.
• The man who marries “another” (of the same kind; of a similar type) illegitimately divorced woman commits adultery.
Takeaway points:
1. Matthew 19:9 is NOT speaking of a legitimately divorced woman who was given a certificate of divorce by her husband and sent away because she committed marital unfaithfulness.
2. Matthew 19:9 is focused solely on the woman who was NOT legitimately divorced for marital unfaithfulness, a woman who is STILL MARRIED but has the legal status of a divorced woman.
3. To marry such a divorced woman is to commit adultery.
4. Jesus is NOT saying that *all* divorced women are illegitimately divorced and thus still married and He is NOT saying that a man commits adultery if he marries a legitimately divorced woman.
There is literally no way around this. Under the correct conditions (marital unfaithfulness) the LAW permits a man to legitimately divorce his wife and that divorced woman may legitimately marry another man without committing adultery. He who marries a legitimately divorced woman does not commit adultery. The point of Deuteronomy 24:4 was that the woman who defiled herself with marital unfaithfulness and was sent away was not allowed to return and be restored as a wife, even if she was at a later point free to remarry. It was not the divorce that defiled her, neither was it her legitimate marriage to another, it was her own actions that were judged by her (original) husband as serious enough that it warranted divorce. To take her back was to accept her infidelity.
To claim that Jesus issued a blanket teaching that marriage to any divorced woman was to commit adultery is to remove the entire point of Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Romans 7:2-3 clearly states that under the Law, a married woman who joins herself to another man is an adulteress, but it is obvious that according to Moses, a woman who has been properly given a certificate of divorce and sent away can legitimately marry another man. These two points are irreconcilable unless one realizes that Jesus was speaking of marriage to a woman who was given a certificate of divorce for some reason other than “porneia” which means the divorce was illegitimate and the woman is actually still married. Since adultery requires a married woman, it should be obvious that is what Jesus was communicating.
BUT, that isn’t the end of the story. Return to what Jesus said earlier in the passage when He said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” and “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” He was pointing to Genesis 2:24’s lack of authority for the man to end a marriage as the original plan for marriage but in NO WAY did Jesus deny that the Law allowed men to legitimately divorce their wives for reason of marital unfaithfulness.
SO… with that understanding we turn to 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 (For clarity’s sake I’ve put the translator’s alternative translations in brackets)
“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave [depart from] her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce [leave] his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her [leave her]. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away [leave her husband] . For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband [the brother]; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”
The first thing we should notice is there are two authorities speaking in this passage, and they are addressing two different groups. In verses 10-11, the Lord Jesus Christ is addressing His married believers, meaning two Christians who are married to each other. This is important because for two married Christians wedded to each other, there is no divorce. There is literally nothing that can end the marriage other than death and no exceptions to this rule.
Context: I know you guys get really tired of me bringing this up, but part of the context here is that the man is authorized to have more than one wife. Notice that if the wife leaves, she is commanded to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband. Not her ex-husband. However, the husband is given no such command because he is authorized to marry another woman. In other words, no wife has the right/ability/authority to sentence her husband to sexual starvation by leaving him and then remaining chaste, unwilling to reconcile herself to him.
This command is completely in accord with what Jesus said in Matthew 19:3-9. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” However, without providing an explanation or details, He implies that perhaps the time might come when a wife must choose to violate the command not to leave her husband, perhaps because staying would be worse. If she does so the text is clear that she is still married and not authorized to marry another.
Again, we have two authorities speaking to two groups. Christ was speaking to those who were wed in unions in which both man and woman are Christians. Paul takes up the instruction beginning in verse twelve, beginning with the words But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” and he made it clear that what followed was from him, speaking with his apostolic authority rather than a direct command from the Lord.
Again, Christ spoke to Christians married to each other, Paul is speaking to the rest. What are the rest? The text makes it clear that Paul is speaking to those unequally yoked, the unions in which the Christian is married to an unbeliever. The text also makes clear “the rest” are not in the same category as the first group.
First, to “the rest” comes the command to stay with the unbeliever and not leave them, send them away or divorce them IF the unbeliever consents to the relationship. The reason is the believer in the relationship sanctifies the unbelieving spouse as well as the children.
Then comes what is known as the “Pauline privilege” in which Paul says:
“Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”
Notice I put the word “bondage” in bold. Let’s compare that to 1st Corinthians 7:39 and then look at definitions:
“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.”
Bondage: Translated from the Greek word “douloó” (Strong’s 1402)
Cognate: 1402 doulóō – enslave (passive, “become enslaved”), focusing on the status of being a bond-slave. In contrast to the other verb-form of the same root (1398 /douleúō), 1402 (doulóō) stresses the results (effects) of enslavement. That is, what automatically goes with belonging to another. See 1401 (doulos).
Bound: Translated from the Greek word “deó” (Strong’s 1210)
I bind, tie, fasten; I impel, compel; I declare to be prohibited and unlawful.
In Matthew 19 Christ made it clear that there was to be no divorce when He said “What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” That is the rule. However, because of the Law, there is one exception to the rule and Christ defined exactly what that exception is when He said “except for the cause of porneia.”
In 1st Corinthians 7 Christ made it clear that for His bondservants married to one another, there is to be no divorce, no exceptions. Christ is free to command His servants and He has done so. However, for those servants of His who are unequally yoked, they are commanded to remain as they are, married to the unbeliever. The one exception to this is if the unbeliever will not consent to live with them and leaves. At that point they are no longer in bondage to that person.
There is no more a contradiction between the statements of Christ in Matthew 19 than there is in 1st Corinthians 7. The rule is given, the exception to the rule is stated and the rule is again re-stated, just as it is stated in other places in Scripture (Romans 7:2). Notice what Romans 7:2 says and pay attention to the text:
“For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.”
The Law provided a way(2) for a husband to unbind himself from his wife, leaving her unbound to him, but only for marital unfaithfulness on her part. In the same way, the instruction in 1st Corinthians 7:15 states that a believing wife who is married to an unbeliever who will not live with her is no longer bound to him (no longer in bondage to him).
This exegesis creates no antinomy and 1st Corinthians 7:15 is thus in harmony with verse 39 as well as with Romans 7:2-3 and follows the same pattern laid out in the Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and exposited by the Lord in Matthew 19:3-9, so I leave you with the words of the Lord in Matthew 19:10-11
The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.”
Now, lest you think I’m some kind of apologist for divorce (which is a real hoot if you’ve read the stuff I’ve written about divorce over the past few years), consider the four groups of women who were at one time married but now are *legitimately* no longer married and thus eligible to marry again, in descending order of the likelihood that you’d ever meet one:
The first group are those legitimately married women who have an unbelieving husband (and it doesn’t matter if the wife is a believer or not). He, not being a Christian and subject to the “house rules” that servants of Christ are, is free to legitimately divorce his unfaithful wife and be free from her. Such a woman is legitimately divorced by her unbelieving husband and free to remarry.
The second group are those legitimately married women whose husband died. They are known as widows and are free to remarry (If she is a believer, she must marry another believer).
The third group are those Christian women who were legitimately married to an unbelieving husband, but ONLY those cases in which the unbelieving husband would not consent to live with them and left. In those cases the believing woman is no longer under bondage and is free to marry another (but only if he is in Christ).
The fourth group are those women who, in their youth and while living in their father’s house under his authority, entered into a marriage by giving their virginity to a man; and their father, upon hearing about it annulled that marriage in the day he heard about it.
Group one women were guilty of betraying their husband. Group four women were guilty of betraying their father. Group three women may or may not have been culpable in driving their unbelieving husband away, so only the widow is free from any charge (although it’s always possible she’s a black widow who murdered her husband and didn’t get caught).
Every member of these groups possess three characteristics: They are free to remarry, they are no longer virgins and their consent to marry is required, as opposed to virgins, whose consent is not required. The other thing about these gals is you’ll almost never meet one of them because if you noticed, I said “legitimately married” and the vast majority of “wives” both in the church and without are *not* legitimately married to the guy they claim to be married to.
Everyone has problems with the fact that every non-virgin is either married or she’s been married. The only “never-married” woman you can possibly meet is a virgin. Now, I’m not in the mood to discuss “vaginal virgins” in this age of anal and casual blowjobs, but I will draw the line in accordance with the text that a woman is either a virgin, a betrothed virgin, married or previously married. No other choices.
What makes Christians scream in frustration is if you search Scripture you’ll find that NOWHERE is having sex with one of these women outside the bounds of marriage forbidden, prohibited or condemned in any way. It is therefore not sinful behavior. It cannot be described as “immorality” or “illicit sex” because those things are sin and having sex outside the bounds of marriage with one of the women in those four groups is not a sin because there is no prohibition on doing so.
Am I saying that guys should go ahead and do it? No. Just because something isn’t forbidden does not mean it’s wise, healthy, beneficial or good. In fact, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a sin. Please pay attention: Just because something isn’t prohibited does not mean that it couldn’t be a sin. While not prohibited or condemned, the act could be a sin IF it is “not of faith” (Romans 14:23) or IF the person knows that for them, *not* having sex outside of marriage is the right thing to do, in which case not doing what they know to be right is a sin (James 4:17). However, in both these cases it’s a matter of conscience and we are commanded not to judge in such matters.
Let’s say you met a nice woman who is *eligible* to marry (meaning she’s either a virgin or one of the four groups listed above). You get to know her, you like what you see, you talk it over with her and the two of you agree to get married. *Because* you have the intent to marry her and *because* she has given her consent to be married, having sex with her will be the consummation of your marriage to her because nothing else is required. If she is a virgin, her willingness to give you her virginity is her consent to be married to you.
If life were a movie, everything could be perfect, but life doesn’t always work that way. Let’s say you’re seeing a woman who is eligible to marry, getting to know her, and although you have not yet decided you intend to marry her… things get out of hand, physical urges take over and you have sex. You haven’t sinned and neither has she. Or, maybe you have. That all depends on your conscience or her conscience. Yes, it happens, but what about intent? Was your intent really to find a suitable wife, or was your intent just to get laid? The fact there is no bright red line with sin on one side and righteousness on the other side means that intent counts for a lot. At least, that’s my way of thinking. What’s the difference between a slut and a whore? Is it the money or the attitude? Isn’t it reasonable to ask the same question about the men?
But, let’s say you’re seeing a woman and she isn’t eligible to marry (meaning she’s already married, whether she knows it or not) and for whatever reason you have sex with her. That is what is known as adultery. What I know to be true is that virtually any “single” woman a guy meets that isn’t a virgin is already married and banging her is adultery. And… can you trust her if she tells you she is a virgin?
At this point any man seriously considering marriage to any non-virgin woman should go over the passages in question with her and her father, explain what they mean, have her confess to her father and ask him to annul her marriage. Failing that, locate the guy she gave her virginity to and if he isn’t a Christian get him to give her a certificate of divorce. Failing that, the only question is whether he’s willing to live with her as her husband. If he won’t, she’s free because he’s the unbelieving husband who won’t consent to live with her. If he is willing, her choice is to be reconciled with her husband or to remain separate, unmarried and chaste. Her choice.
The only way out for a Christian woman who married a Christian man is if she married him while in her youth, living in her father’s house and he didn’t know about it. Not having given his approval, her father has the right to annul the marriage in the day he hears about it and Numbers 30 doesn’t have any time limits. If he won’t (her guilt would be on him) then she’s stuck with the guy she married until the day he dies.
Nobody has to like it, they just have to obey.
Footnotes
  1. When Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 He then stated “they are no longer two, but one flesh. What God has therefore joined together let no man separate.” In responding to the Pharisees objection concerning Moses and the permission to divorce their wives, Jesus said “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” What we see is Jesus pointing to the fact that Genesis 2:24 does not contain the authority to terminate a marriage, only to initiate marriage. Given that God regulated, condoned, commanded and even participated in polygyny, it is obvious that Genesis 2:24 should be understood as not limiting the man to only one wife.
  2. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is a judgment that references the process of giving a certificate of divorce to the wife and sending her away, but it is clear that Moses is referencing an earlier ruling on this matter because the issue Moses was ruling on in verses 2-4 was what happens after the divorced woman leaves. Obviously she is authorized to remarry, but can she come back to her husband? No. Did the divorce defile her? No, it was her actions that caused her husband to divorce her that defiled her and for the man who divorced her to later accept her back as his wife was for him to defile himself by justifying the action that caused him to divorce her in the first place.