Month: August 2016

The Game Is Chess, Not Checkers.

Artisanal Toad39 Comments
Chess, not checkers.
The past few days have been amusing, as commenter whysoserious? has provided enormous entertainment. While probably not apparent to the casual reader, the reason is simple. He followed the script perfectly.
My position is the truth of what Scripture actually says. The Hebrew word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex. We know this because Genesis 2:24 was translated into Greek by the Apostles to record Christ quoting Genesis 2:24, using the Greek word “Kolloa” to translate the Hebrew word “dabaq”. Then, the Apostle Paul used the context of Genesis 2:24 (quoting half the verse) in his prohibition that forbid Christian men from having sex with prostitutes. In that prohibition, which was structured in the same way as Genesis 2:24, the word “kolloa” was used to mean sex. A=B and B=C, thus A=C. Simple.

The Dilemma Of The Status Quo

For the defenders of the status quo this is a damned if you do and a damned if you don’t argument because the “status quo” on sex and marriage is irreconcilable as it is now, due to the Catholic church’s decision to throw out what the Bible said about marriage and sex a long time ago. As it is, the cucks get a choice:
There is NO prohibition on sex with prostitutes
or,
Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her.
There is no middle ground, they can’t avoid both, because bringing 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 into harmony with Genesis 2:24 will result in one of them. It’s unavoidable. This is why I suggested in my last post that readers present the original argument of whysoserious? as the argument that the Bible didn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes. Let’s face it, that really is an absurd argument, but you’re playing chess. Let them play checkers.
Let them make the conservative defense of it and properly give the correct exegesis. When they win their game of checkers and demonstrate that sex with prostitutes is forbidden, you’ve won your game of chess. Because the final argument by whysoserious? of throwing out Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage is completely preposterous. It’s one thing to do something like that online, anonymously, but not where you live. Not in front of the people who pay your salary.
One of my goals in this sort of argument is to keep things on the “common man” level and I made every effort to avoid using the jargon of theologians. The reason is we are dealing with the truth and the Bible was written to be understood by the common man. Certainly study and training helps, but there is no substitute for time spent in serious study. The tools available today in the form of computerized databases allow the kind of study that was all but impossible only fifty years ago. Combine those tools with time in diligent study and the truth comes out. One of those truths is that Genesis 2:24 should read like this:

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and he shall have sexual intercourse with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”

That result of that is the man who has sex with an eligible virgin marries her and every other man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery. Since this truth is unacceptable to modern churchians, they must find a way to attack it in order to preserve the status quo. There are only a few ways to do that. Obviously, this argument devolves to the word “kolloa” and the fact it means sex as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16. That calls into question the word “porne” which is the word for prostitute. If “porne” doesn’t necessarily mean a woman who sells sexual access to her body for money, then “kolloa” doesn’t necessarily mean sex. That was the first line of attack that our commenter whysoserious? used.

Round One

When determining the meaning of any given word in the Bible there are some rules, or hermeneutics used, which is to say an accepted way of doing so. The Protestant Reformation was based on the hermeneutic of “Sola Scriptura” which means “Only Scripture.” That tossed out the teachings and traditions of the church contained in the Easter Bunny’s book of opinions called the magisterium. Conservatively, when we want to find out what a word means we look for how it’s used in other places in the Bible, in general, and specifically in context.
The first line of attack by whysoserious? was on this front. He made the argument that because in the other places in which “kolloa” was used of human interaction, it carried the meaning of loyalty and faithfulness (the hallmarks of the marriage relationship), so that was the meaning that should be used in 1st Corinthians 6:16. Further, because the Greek word “porne” was somewhat related to the Hebrew word “zanah” and the Hebrew word “zanah” was used occasionally to metaphorically describe an adulterous wife, the Greek word “porne” should mean an adulterous wife or a promiscuous woman. The resulting argument was 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 wasn’t really forbidding Christian men from banging whores, it was a warning not to marry an adulterous or promiscuous woman. It was a fine sounding argument if one is willing to overlook the sheer absurdity. But, there was this little problem with the unintended consequence of stirring up that witches brew of absurdity.
When confronted with the fact that if his interpretation was correct, there was no longer any prohibition on Christian men using prostitutes, it was time to shift gears. Uh oh. Back to the drawing board. The reality hit that the meaning of the word “kolloa” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16 must be sex and the use of the word “porne” must be a prostitute.
Remember, I previously stated that given a choice it would be to go with the prohibition on using prostitutes. This is because women control the money and of the two, they’ll vote for the prohibition on prostitutes every single time. Guess which one whysoserious? went with?

Round Two

Now it was time for another attack. Remember, there are only three elements to this. It cannot be questioned that Christ quoted Genesis 2:24, and if the word “kolloa” means sex within the context of 1st Corinithians 6:16 it means the Hebrew word “dabaq” means sex in Genesis 2:24 and that means… the eligible virgin is married when she has sex the first time. No ceremony needed, nothing else. The man and woman have penetrative intercourse, God seals the covenant by making them one flesh. Every single time. Because the text says so and because Jesus said so.
Commenter whysoserious? concedes the argument, that “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 does actually mean sex. But he still can’t tolerate what that means. It does not take a rocket scientist to see what has to come next. The only thing left to do is attack Genesis 2:24. Which is what our commenter whysoserious? has done. Watch carefully.

“The reader of the Bible is assumed to know what marriage is, just like he’s assumed to know what a man is, or a king, or a nation. These words, though integral to understanding the Bible, are left to the reader’s cultural knowledge of the ancient Near East.”

WRONG! For Christians, the reason we know the meaning of marriage, or at least the reason we should know the meaning of marriage, is because God told us what marriage is. He did so in Genesis 2:24. It is true we pick up on cultural cues, but it’s also true that our cultural cues in the United States and other nations derived from Great Britain are derived from the teachings of the church when it comes to things like marriage. That is beyond dispute. That such teaching and practices don’t actually match the Bible when it comes to marriage is not the fault of the Bible, but of the ancient church. Readers of this blog should understand that.

“Genesis 2:24 is NOT a law or a definition; it is the conclusion to a story that explains why a man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Read it yourself: you’ll see this is the natural context and interpretation”

See the attack on Genesis 2:24? This claim would come as a great surprise to Christ and to the Apostle Paul. When asked about divorce, Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority for marriage. When comparing the one-flesh bond of marriage to the one-body bond of being part of the body of Christ, Paul quoted Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31-32. Both of whom cited Genesis 2:24 as authoritatively defining at the very least.
If one could believe this twaddle about Genesis 2:24 not being authoritative on marriage, it leaves us in the uncomfortable position of having the death-penalty offense of adultery in a situation in which marriage is not defined. If one cannot define a marriage, one cannot know when the wife violates the marriage. Forget about what someone might think of near-eastern cultures, we’re talking about God’s chosen people.
However, from a strategic point of view this is exactly what the cucks want. Genesis 2:24 is the law that grants the man the authority to initiate marriage. Get rid of Genesis 2:24 as being authoritative and who has the authority to initiate marriage? Who can require that the prospective couple obtain permission or a license? Who can say what a marriage really is? Obviously, if there is no definition of marriage, then homosexual marriage is allowed and there can be no crime of adultery. In fact, without a definition of marriage and the authority to marry, there can be no marriage. I’m not saying whysoserious? is one of the cucks, but he’s certainly playing their tune.
All people will be judged according to the Law, which defines what sin is (Romans 4:15, 5:13). Just as only those who receive salvation in Christ will receive eternal life. The Bible is very clear on that. Since the Bible testifies of itself that the Law of the Lord is perfect, we would expect to see a standard of marriage that exists across all cultures, times and peoples.
As it just so happens, God provided that standard in Genesis 2:24 and He chose to make the act of sexual intercourse the initiation of the marriage. This fits perfectly with the fact that God chose to create women with a hymen. Think of it as a tamper-proof seal. A study of covenants indicates that covenants with God are initiated by the man with the shedding of blood. Thus, when the man uses the act of marriage to begin the marriage, with the shedding of blood the covenant of marriage is initiated. God responds by making the two one flesh. For all people of all times in all cultures, nations and races.
Observe Deuteronomy 22:13-17
“If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then turns against her, and charges her with shameful deeds and publicly defames her, and says, ‘I took this woman, but when I came near her, I did not find her a virgin,’ then the girl’s father and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of the girl’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. “The girl’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man for a wife, but he turned against her; and behold, he has charged her with shameful deeds, saying, “I did not find your daughter a virgin.” But this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.”
What was the evidence? A bloody garment, proving she was a virgin and he broke her hymen when he penetrated (married) her. There’s more than meets the eye here, but the point is simple: She was presented at the beginning of her betrothal as a virgin. Legally she was married while betrothed. Not a virgin at the end of the betrothal period? That’s adultery. And no bloodstained garment for evidence meant she got stoned to death for it at the door of her fathers house.
The standard of “sex with an eligible virgin consummates the marriage” as stated in Genesis 2:24 leaves room for any cultural issues, voluntary agreements and what have you, because it boils down to one question- did the man have sex with a virgin eligible to marry him? If yes, they’re married. If no, then not. Reams could be written about the fact that across the cultures and geographic locations, sex remains the definitive act of marriage, but commenter whysoserious? wants to imagine that Genesis 2:24 is now just part of the story in Genesis describing what happened with Adam and Eve.
No. Genesis 2:24 is the law of marriage. It provides the authority to marry, describes how marriage takes place and from what is not provided we have the parameters that a man can take more than one wife but has no authority to divorce. The divorce issue got modified a few times, but in order to understand the divorce issue it’s critical to understand what Christ was talking about when He said “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” (Matthew 19:8)
As we’ve already seen, Christ obviously considered Genesis 2:24 authoritative enough to quote it as the standard of marriage, as well as the Apostle Paul. But is there anything more? Yes. Consider Romans 7:2-3
“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 husban d. So then, if she is joined to another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law and is not an adulteress, even if she marries another man.
Consider 1st Corinthians 7:39, speaking of Christian wives.
“A wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, as long as he belongs to the Lord.”
By what law is she bound if Genesis 2:24 is not a law? One might argue that this passage is speaking of the law concerning adultery, but there can be no adultery without a married woman. Further, the law concerning adultery prohibits violating, you guessed it, the marriage. How is the woman bound? By the law of marriage, the law concerning her husband: Genesis 2:24.
Genesis 2:24 was the first law given to mankind, which implemented the Command to be fruitful and multiply, because God wants children born within marriage. We know this because God said no illegitimate child shall enter the assembly of the Lord down to the tenth generation. Marriage is the container designed by God in which to bring children into this world. We all know how that happens, with the act of marriage. Sex.

The Pooch Is Screwed

Most interestingly, this little exchange illustrates the lengths to which those with the training to know the truth will go to disregard the truth. Our fearless commenter states:

“You’re closing your eyes to anything that could reveal an alternate interpretation.”

Let the reader be reminded of the facts. My argument has not changed, nor has my approach to the interpretation of Scripture. His statement here is pure projection. He has jumped from the amusingly absurd to the preposterous. On the one hand he states he prefers “the tried and true” but that only works as long as “dabaq” means “commitment.” As soon as it means “sex” he is willing to toss Genesis 2:24 in the trash if it’s necessary to prevent this truth from being recognized.
This is why we have such a dilemma. It is unquestioned that Genesis 2:24 is the origin and authoritative definition of marriage in the Bible. It is unquestioned that men are forbidden to have sex with prostitutes by the Apostle Paul in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. But, under the definitions now in place, something has to change because they are not in agreement. Either you get sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her or you no longer have a prohibition on banging whores. Which is why the argument presented by whysoserious? is so preposterous. He wants to keep the prohibition on banging whores and get rid of the law of marriage.
His two linguistic arguments centered around adding the Septuagint to broaden the specific meaning of the critical text, as well as to make a literal use of metaphor to add requirements where there are none. I, of course, reject this. Metapor is metaphor and it isn’t to be taken literally, but read metaphorically or allegorically to grasp the underlying truth. Otherwise we have naked brides, cloaks and oaths required for marriage and women only committing adultery when they find men possessed of genitalia the size of donkeys. I grew up on a farm and having seen the real thing I can factually state that not even porn stars make it into the donkey league.
When the man has sex with an eligible virgin they are married. That’s what this is about. That cannot be allowed to be known because the adultery epidemic must continue. As soon as the people discover how badly they have been lied to, everything changes and the money spigot for those who knew or should have known will be turned off.
What has not been stated is that throughout this argument I have used the basic, conservative rules of Scriptural interpretation approved by such bastions of conservatism as the Southern Baptist Convention and that Evangelical pastor pupation station, the Dallas Theological Seminary. In addition I’ve used the “common man” argument style, eschewing jargon, with Scripture as my sole authority. I’m told it’s the sort of thing only a complete asshole would do.
Commenter whysoserious? knows that he can’t win this argument on the merits. He tried and he failed. But, he thinks I’m wrong. He protests:

“You reject a corpus of ancient Greek text which gives insight into the definitions and usages of words important to this discussion, you “don’t accept” illuminations of relevant cultural practices that cast doubt on your ideology; all to save your precious syllogisms of contrived equivalences, concocted from methodical exclusions of linguistic and cultural context. I expected more from you, sir: you broke free from the shackles of popular doctrine, only to lock yourself in a new prison… or something like that. I never feel like I stick the landing on my melodramatic sentences.”

To put it another way, I make a very narrow argument using conservative methodology that points to a serious dichotomy between some definitions which has a huge impact on doctrine. Just like the homosexual men arguing that God loves everyone and their homosexuality isn’t actually a sin, Sola Scriptura isn’t a winning strategy for whysoserious?. He rejects Sola Scriptura in this case because it does not yield the result he desires. For example:

“Plus, the word [used by the Septuagint] for temple prostitute in Deut. 23:18 is, you guessed it!porne. This preserves the Law and the consistent nature of God. Rather than sticking out like a sore thumb, this passage can fit seamlessly into the Biblical narrative.”

No. The word “qadesh” (temple prostitute) is used in the prohibition against temple prostitutes in verse 17. The word used in verse 18 is “zanah” so there is no connection with temple prostitution at all. Verse 18 forbids the wages of a prostitute from being used for any votive offering in the temple. However, the word “zanah” carries with it added meaning that the word “porne” does not (adultery), which allows the meaning of the word “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 15-16 to be shifted to something more to his liking.
What is truly hilarious is that he claims I’m closing my eyes to anything that would yield an alternative explanation, somehow forgetting that he is supposed to be defending the status quo. When he discovered that the defense of the status quo means either sex with a virgin results in marriage or sex with prostitutes is a permitted and moral activity, he became the one with the alternative explanations.
The thing about the Septuagint and Deuteronomy 23:18 is whysoserious? has demonstrated he only wants to use that connection through the Septuagint in order to make “porne” about temple prostitution, even though he knows better. This is what we call eisegesis, which is to read into the text what we want to see. In this case the text written by Apostolic authority won’t support what he wants so he turns to the Septuagint to broaden the definitions that don’t exist in the New Testament in order to re-define things to his liking.
He also wants to use an obvious metaphor involving God being married to an entire nation to create further requirements for a man to be married to a woman. However, this is just sour grapes because it’s too late. With the admission that “porne” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 means prostitute, the word “kolloa” can only mean sex, which means “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex. Which means that Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 nail down the point that there is nothing else required and his metaphor is simply a metaphor.
The pooch, as they say, has now been thoroughly screwed.
Thus, he wants to do away with the law of marriage entirely. He claims it’s not a law, it’s not a definition, it’s just part of the story of creation. Why? Anything to get away from the truth that when a man has sex with an eligible virgin he’s married to her. The absurdity here is hilarious. The claim that the description of God’s metaphorical marriage to Judah and Israel in Ezekiel creates a requirement for marriage because, as he stated, marriage requires something more than sex. But, the text doesn’t support that any more than it supports naked brides and cloaks. In the same way that adultery doesn’t require men with genitalia the size of donkeys.
The night ends and the pooch is now hiding behind the couch, howling.
Awareness dawns and suddenly Genesis 2:24 is nothing but a story.
The irony is the role reversal. Normally, when anyone presents a radical departure from what our commenter calls the “tried and true” of the Bible they do exactly what whysoserious? is doing. Those defending the status quo stick to the conservative hermeneutics, which is what I’ve done.
In this case what the Bible says is clear. What is also clear is the Catholic church chose to throw out what the Bible said about sex and marriage, replacing it with a mixture of pagan practices, stoic philosophy and Roman law. The historical record is rather precise as to the development of these doctrines, as well as the political reasons why they were put in place.
There is one point I didn’t address, and that was the comment about my hypothetical honor. I think I saw her once, but from a distance. I can’t be sure. But, honor is as honor does. I have certainly enjoyed this exchange.
NB. The pooch was metaphorically screwed by metaphorical donkeys. No dogs were actually violated, even the pooch was a metaphorical construct. The howling was real.

Black Knighting Churchian Marriage

Artisanal Toad11 Comments
Black Knight

You just can’t make this stuff up. Really.

Commenter whysoserious? presented a rather interesting argument. It was rather long and I wanted to address it so I turned it into a post all its own. That continued in the comments and he finally narrowed things and presented the argument. It was fascinating, actually. In fact, it was so good that it pointed to a tremendous opportunity for serious black knighting.
Readers of this blog are aware that I have advanced the point that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her. What that means in practical terms is simple: the man who got the woman’s virginity is her husband. The guy who had a wedding with a woman who was not a virgin isn’t really married to her because she was already married. The technical term for this is adultery because unless the man who got her virginity was dead, she was still married to him. According to information from the CDC and other organizations, at least 80% of the so-called marriages in any given church are cases of adultery, not marriage. Which probably has a lot to do with why we see so many divorces.
For those who are familiar with this you can skip down to the next heading. For those who are not, you need to read this to understand why this is so much fun.
I have repeatedly made the argument using the text of what Genesis 2:24 actually says. Genesis 2:24 contains three elements. The first is a change in status, that by virtue of the fact he is marrying a woman, the man leaves from under the authority of his father and his mother in forming his own family, over which he is the head. This isn’t physically leaving because a man can get married and continue living in his parents home, this is a change of status. To date, no-one has ever argued to the contrary with me.
The second element is where the man has sex with his wife. The Hebrew word that is typically translated into English as “cleave” or “join” is the Hebrew word “dabaq.” That word is used 54 times and while I argue that it definitely means sex in Genesis 2:24 and I will also argue that it should mean sex in 1st Kings 11:2, in all the other usages of the word it basically means commitment.
(I believe a far better translation of 1st Kings 11:2 would be “Solomon loved to have sex with them” instead of “Solomon held fast to them in love.” We’re talking about the man with 1000 wives. That wasn’t about commitment, it was about sexual variety.)
The third element is the action of God, in which the two shall become one flesh. We know that it’s the action of God because Jesus said so in Matthew 19:6. In the first element we have the change in status, in the second element we have the action of the man and in the third element we have the action of God. This isn’t difficult to understand.
That view is completely contrary to the interpretation advanced a long time ago by the Easter Bunny. He claimed that because “dabaq” meant commitment everywhere else, so it meant commitment in Genesis 2:24 and that’s where the wedding ceremony was inserted. No, they claim, sex cannot make you married, there has to be a ceremony where the couple makes their commitment to each other. After that, the two became one flesh, which he defined as the point at which the couple had sex. There are multiple problems with this, but ultimately they all hinge on the meaning of the word “dabaq.”

Dabaq Gets The Shiv in Translation

I advanced the argument that we know the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex because Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 and the Apostolic translation of the word into Greek used the Greek word “kolloa.” With that we have a hard and direct translation of dabaq to kolloa. Then, the Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 used the word kolloa within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 to textually define kolloa as the act of becoming one body with a prostitute. Sex, in other words. The context of Genesis 2:24 cannot be questioned because Paul quoted half of Genesis 2:24 within the text of verse 16 and the structure makes it clear that kolloa was used in that verse exactly as dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24.
A = B and B = C, therefore, A = C. It’s that simple, and as used in Genesis 2:24, the word dabaq means sex. Which means that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her. But, this gets even more interesting. The word dabaq is used everywhere else as commitment and and kolloa is used everywhere else in terms of human relationships as fidelity and faithfulness, so within the context of Genesis 2:24 sex is clearly the way a man demonstrates his commitment of fidelity and faithfulness in marriage. In other words, sex is the act of marriage for a man, the specific act by which a man marries a woman.
This answers the question of why the word dabaq, which means commitment everywhere else, would suddenly mean sex when it comes to the initiation of marriage. Because sex is how the man makes his commitment to the marriage. And, this fits perfectly with all the ancillary Scripture such as Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29. Again, I’ve written about this repeatedly.
That is the setup.
In order to defeat this argument, one has to show that the word kolloa does NOT mean sex in 1st Corinthians 6:16, that instead it means something else. Since, like the word dabaq, the word kolloa means faithfulness and loyalty in all the other times it’s used, that would be the logical way to go.
Commenter whysoserious? decided to make what he called the reasonable argument that kolloa meant marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16, and the meaning of the passage was that the Apostle Paul was telling Christian men they were not to marry a prostitute or a promiscuous woman. This is where the fun began.
Having been on the receiving end of this type of argument as it applied to dabaq, I was very familiar with it, but I wanted to see how far he would take it. And credit must be given to whysoserious? because there was obviously a lot of work put into that argument. Yes, it was weak. The points were specious and none of it hung together very well, but on the surface it sounded damn good. For those Christians who don’t know their Bibles well, it would be an extremely intimidating argument. It doesn’t get much better than this.

Unintended Consequences

There was a problem with the argument, which falls into the category of unintended consequences. The only reason to make the argument in the first place was to defeat the point I’d been making, that the Hebrew word dabaq meant sex when it was used in Genesis 2:24. Seriously, who in their right mind would try to reinterpret 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 to mean that it’s not talking about sex with prostitutes unless there were a damn good reason for doing so? The passage is so clear that it’s been recognized for exactly what it means for 2000 years. Banging prostitutes is forbidden for Christian men. It’s so well understood that it’s where the English word fornication actually comes from.
As a result of torturing the text and twisting it out of shape to claim that kolloa meant marriage and not sex, there was an unintended consequence. Many people do not know this, but the only place in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with prostitutes is 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute. There is a specific prohibition on cult prostitution, which is associated with idolatry, but not on ordinary prostitution. An odious profession, but not an immoral profession.
However, the only way that prohibition exists is if, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, the Greek word porne means a prostitute and the Greek word kolloa means sex. As long as the word kolloa means sex there is a prohibition on using prostitutes and possibly even promiscuous women for sex. But, what happens if someone creates an argument designed to prove that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in order to support the Easter Bunny’s claim that dabaq doesn’t mean sex in Genesis 2:24?

There is no longer any prohibition on having sex with prostitutes.

Consider for a moment just what kind of fun you can have using this on churchian cucks. All that’s happening is the dabaq script is being flipped on kolloa, but when it’s presented as the “proof” that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes, it only forbids marrying them, it will provoke the insane desire to overcome the argument. Which is exactly what is desired. Commenter whysoserious? did all the heavy lifting in putting this argument together and if I ever create a “Toad’s Hall of Fame” then he’s got the first nomination in the “Unintended Black Knight” category.
So, make the argument that the Bible only forbids marrying prostitutes, not having sex with them, because kolloa doesn’t mean sex, it means marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16. The little known fact that the only prohibition against having sex with prostitutes is that particular passage and the even less well-known fact that if it weren’t for 1st Corinthians 6:16 banging prostitutes would be a moral activity (within certain limits) combine to really set things into high gear. Because those points are the absolute truth and easy to prove. It all comes down to the meaning of the word kolloa and the argument is that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in that passage.
Your favorite churchian cuck is now on a mission to prove the truth, that in 1st Corinthians 6:16, the meaning of the word kolloa is in fact sex because the meaning of the word porne in that passage is a prostitute and men go to prostitutes to get sex, not marriage. The Black Knight’s job is to get them stirred up so that they put some energy into solving this little problem. Be obnoxious about it. Taunt them. Make sure they want everyone to know when they defeat your argument, because after publicly owning it, you can congratulate them on proving that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.
Oh- and what are we going to do about all the adultery here in the congregation?
Best of all, this is an either or choice. If kolloa means sex in that passage then banging an eligible virgin is to marry her. If kolloa doesn’t mean sex then there is no prohibition on banging prostitutes. Words mean things.
In modern churchianity it’s the women who control the money. In large part it’s women who determine whether a family attends any particular church. Ask yourself this: which of these two options will the women choose? My money is on sex with an eligible virgin is marriage. There are options there, like Daddy annulling the marriage. Not so with the moral legitimacy of her husband getting the odd piece on the side. That’s not going to fly.
Keep in mind the power dynamics and Black Knight the hell out of this. Now that the Cucks have proven that kolloa means sex, it means dabaq means sex. What about all the adultery around here? This is a tar baby of magnificent proportions. So don’t forget to thank whysoserious? for doing the heavy lifting by putting this together.

The Necropsy Continues

Artisanal Toad22 Comments
autopsy
Commenter whysoserious? dropped an interesting protest the other day and again I decided to turn the response into a post because his arguments are sophisticated enough that it takes a bit of effort to nail down exactly what he’s saying and respond on point.
[Pleasant introduction omitted]
That said, I do believe you are mistaken about premarital sex. The way I understand it, you say that the Greek ‘kollao’ signifies sex in Matt. 19:4-5 (and so too in Gen. 2:24) because Paul writes about ‘kollao’ with a prostitute in I Cor. 6:16. You assume that, since a prostitute is involved, ‘kollao’ must mean sex. Consequently, if a man marries a woman who had premarital sex, his marriage is actually not valid, and he is really committing adultery against her true husband. Please correct me if I’m misrepresenting your perspective.
Yes, you’ve misrepresented me. The differences are extremely significant.
Let’s begin with the first sentence, referring to “premarital sex.” To use the term “premarital sex” is to say that marriage does not get initiated with the act of sex, there is something else that has to be done. That is the position of the Catholic church and has been for over 1000 years, but that isn’t what the Bible says. Not once in your entire comment did you ever hint what this extra something might be but the implication of your argument is clear that there must be something extra.
“You assume that, since a prostitute is involved, ‘kollao’ must mean sex.”
The correct word is “assert” rather than “assume.” I have made assertions because I have provided exhaustive exegetical support of my assertions. I do not present assumptions, which is to suppose something to be the case, without proof. And, yes, I assert that in the 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 passage that the act of becoming one body with the prostitute is the act of having sex with her. From your argument, you assume that it doesn’t mean that and it’s an assumption because you provide no evidence and no proof.
Please tell me, of the men who use prostitutes, why do at least 99% of the men pay those women? What is it that they are paying for if it isn’t sex? That’s a serious question. I’m sure there are various men who pay prostitutes to engage in various fetish behaviors that don’t involve his penis and her body, but these are abnormalities and represent an extremely small amount. If it isn’t sex, what is it? That’s the first olive out of the jar.
The context of visiting a prostitute is all about sex. Sure, there are emotional needs being met, the ego is getting stroked, maybe back in the day it also meant a place to stay, but at some point it meant a pair of legs would be spread receptively because that is the hallmark of what prostitutes do.
To claim that “kollao” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:15 does not mean sex is at best disingenuous and at worst an attempt at malicious deception. If you desire to make the claim that the word means something other than sex, please, make the argument. We all need to be amused from time to time and I’d like to hear it. Until someone can make a convincing argument otherwise, it means sex on this blog.
And not just the married to a cringe-worthy wimp kind of dead-bedroom starfish sex that one gets from a wife who is repulsed by her husband; but the kind of enthusiastic sex men are willing to pay for. Where the woman at least fakes having a good time and tries to see to it that he has a good time because he’s a paying customer.
Paul uses the interesting play on words between one body and one flesh in that passage to make the point that Genesis 2:24 made and Christ explained in Matthew 19: the act of the man is to have sex with the woman and the act of God is to make the two become one flesh. Not only is sex the hallmark of prostitution, but combine it with the act itself described in the text as becoming one body. Can there be any doubt that it means sex? Does it depend on the meaning of the word “is” or some other Clintonesque term of art?
However, the point is NOT that Paul simply used “kollao” as a descriptor of sex, but he used it specifically within the context of Genesis 2:24, partially quoting Genesis 2:24. So it’s not that “kollao” might mean sex in the context of Genesis 2:24, but that it definitely means sex in that passage as translated into New Testament Greek by translators with Apostolic Authority.
Therefore, according to Genesis 2:24, it’s the sex that makes the eligible virgin married. There is no requirement, anywhere, for a ceremony or any outside third-party permission of any kind. And that blows the current idea of “premarital sex” all to hell and gone because according to the Bible, the only possible premarital sex is when a betrothed couple have sex during the betrothal period. That is, before they were permitted to. It isn’t the sex that’s the problem, it’s the violation of Numbers 30:2, the man gave his word and made a vow that he didn’t keep. That, of course, is being liberal with the text, because conservatively sex with a betrothed virgin is death-penalty rape even if the guy who did it is her betrothed.
Premarital sex is what the Catholic church came up with after they inserted their unbiblical requirement of consent by the woman (to usurp the authority of her father) and the unbiblical requirement of a ceremony with witnesses and the church’s blessing (to usurp the authority of the man) in order for the marriage to be considered valid.
Now, in Ezekiel 23:1-4, we read God describing himself as a man married to two sisters who were prostitutes in their youth. Yet this is not seen as adultery! What gives? I suppose you would say that a) their father annulled their initial marriages or b) they are divorced or widowed. But the text says nothing to support that theory. Likewise, the sexual histories of Rahab and other prostitutes in the Bible are rarely mentioned, which seems odd for a matter of (theoretically) such moral importance. Your view is internally consistent, and you could brush these concerns off as culturally assumed in ancient times, but I think there may be a neater solution.
This appears to be intended to throw further doubt on things, which allows offering a “neater solution.” However, as I stated in the comments, we need to examine the text.
“The word of the LORD came to me again, saying, “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother; and they played the harlot in Egypt. They played the harlot in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and there their virgin bosom was handled. Their names were Oholah the elder and Oholibah her sister. And they became Mine, and they bore sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah and Jerusalem is Oholibah.”
First, it does not say the women were prostitutes, it says they played the harlot. Not the same thing at all, not even close. We are dealing with the word “zanah” which carries with it definitions of illicit sex as well as idolatry (spiritual adultery). The word “zanah” does not necessarily mean sex. For example:
1) Leviticus 20:5 (Zanah defined in the text as Molech worship)
2) Leviticus 20:6 (Zanah defined in the text as using mediums and spiritists)
3) Leviticus 21:9 (Zanah contextually implied as being sexual idolatry)
4) Numbers 25:1 (Zanah defined in the text as Baal worship)
While some might say that the Numbers 25:1 reference is to having sex, and the implication of sex is clear because the young women went into the camp to lure the men into going with them, the text is also clear that their sin was bowing down to the baal of Peor. Pour girls at a liquor event are there to use their innate sex appeal to convince you to buy their liquor, not to have sex with you.
However, we should continue with the text of Ezekiel 23 and look at verse eight, which further describes what the two sisters did in their youth:
“She did not forsake her harlotries from the time in Egypt; for in her youth men had lain with her, and they handled her virgin bosom and poured out their lust on her.”
Again with the virgin reference and they didn’t pour out their lust in her, they poured out their lust on her. Some might look at the “lain with her” and conclude they were no longer virgins. However, we see something different if we examine the text closely. “men” (plural) had lain with “her” (singular) and “they” (plural) handled her virgin bosom (again with the virgin identification and the breasts reference) and poured out their lust on “her” (singular). Here we see the image of multiple men handling her virgin bosom, pouring out their lust on her. Not in her, not satisfying their lust. She’s only a virgin up until the first guy bangs her so it isn’t possible that multiple men are having sex with her and she’s still being described as virgin.
And verse 21: “Thus you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when the Egyptians handled your bosom because of the breasts of your youth.”
Lewdness is Strong’s 2154. “zimmah.” a plan, device, wickedness. And again the reference to having their tits played with. Evidently they had spectacular tits.
The meaning of the text can be completely satisfied with the interpretation that they didn’t have sex, they just got close to doing so. What we’re left with is the impression of two precocious little cock-teases that played with the boys and had lots of fun but never quite went all the way. Still virgins, in other words, but morally corrupted. That moral corruption didn’t leave them and later after they were married and had sons and daughters, they did commit adultery, returning to the lusts of their youth, but unlike in their youth they took things to its conclusion. Witness the term “uncoverd her nakedness.”
Perhaps some might choose to interpret this as the two sisters having sex and thus they’d been married to the man they gave their virginity to, in which case God committed adultery. Rather than look at that as the confirmation that they were virgins, you use this as the excuse to say that the standard doesn’t exist. Right.
I have two alternate theories of sex and marriage to try to explain this, and I would appreciate your feedback.
1). I Cor. 6 is a continuation of the discussion of sexual immorality that began in chapter five. Here, ‘porne’ is used like ‘zanah’ to signify a sexual loose woman, but not necessarily a cash-for-sex prostitute. ‘Kollao’ means to be contractually joined in marriage, and ‘one flesh’ is the quality which results from marriage. Given the use of ‘kollao’ elsewhere in the New Testament, this isn’t far-fetched at all. Contextually, Paul is discussing sexual immorality – adultery, incest, bestiality, sodomy – and adultery is the only sin that makes sense here. So, Paul is condemning ‘wife-sharing’ practices, or anything else which defiles one’s own wife. Since a man is one flesh with his wife, the immoral practices of his spouse are also his own; as he is a Christian, they also reflect on the Church. Sex with cash-for-sex, non-cult prostitutes is left free of regulation. (See my explanation of the Exodus passage after 2).)
This is where we get to the heart of where you don’t get it.
Women can have sex one of four ways, and only four ways.
  • First, they can have married sex. Every eligible virgin who has sex is having marriage sex because that’s what makes her married.
  • Second, they can commit adultery. That’s sex with any man other than their husband.
  • Third, they can have sinful sex, which is sex within the context of idolatry, incest or even in which they are the victim, such as a married woman when she is raped. It wasn’t her sin but it was sinful sex.
  • Finally, there’s sex that doesn’t fall into any of these categories. It isn’t prohibited so it isn’t a sin and if the non-virgin unmarried woman in question doesn’t consent to marriage it isn’t marital sex. It’s just sex.
What is commonly known as “premarital sex” is most frequently either marital sex if it involves a virgin, or adultery if it involves a woman who was previously married when she gave her virginity to another man. In rare instances it might be the fourth one because the woman is neither married nor a virgin. Even in instances of “real” premarital sex in which the betrothed couple has sex, if the man gets a pass then the sex isn’t the sin, it’s the violation of his vow not to have sex.
Under the Law, sex with a prostitute falls into category #4. 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 changed that for Christian men and only for Christian men. If you want an exercise in extreme frustration, attempt to find a single passage anywhere in the Old or New Testament that forbids a woman from engaging in money-for-sex prostitution. It was forbidden to be a cult prostitute (idolatry) but there is nothing in the Law that says an unmarried non-virgin woman can’t survive by working on her back and that didn’t change in the New Testament.
What most Christians don’t understand is that when Paul said don’t have sex with prostitutes, that was new, because prior to that men were not forbidden to do that regardless of whether they were married or not. Keep in mind, the reason men pay prostitutes is two-fold: they provide sex and they leave when the man is done with them. That was important for several reasons. The non-virgin eligible woman has to give her consent in order to be married, but the act of marriage is still having sex. So if you’re banging the widow down the street and she says she agreed to be married, you’re married. If the man denies it, the only question is whether you were banging her. The known prostitute? No way would the community support her if she claimed she was married to a guy because they had sex and he said no, it was a cash transaction. The only way anyone would believe the man was married to her is if they both claimed they were.
You see, back before there were SDT’s and Paul’s prohibition, sex with a prostitute was the original safe sex. She dealt with the risk of pregnancy, she supported herself, she took care of everything and charged a reasonable fee to spread her legs. And since I brought it up, it wasn’t until the Catholic church went on its war against all things sexual that men started with the sheep-shagging which is where syphilis came from.
A prostitute is still a prostitute at the end of the day. A wife is still a wife at the end of the day. Wife swapping is adultery, not prostitution. The text means exactly what it says.
2). I Cor. 6 is a reference to the widespread use of temple prostitutes in Corinth (immoral behavior according to the Law), and ‘kollao’ does mean sex. However, we interpret Genesis 2 and Matthew 19 differently, focusing on the agent of unification. Genesis 2 explains why sex exists: because the woman was taken from the man, so that man would not be alone. It is a declarative passage, explaining a phenomenon – not defining a moral law. Christ in Matthew 19 explains that divorce is a separation of what God has put together. Where’s God in Genesis 2:24? Nowhere to to be found – the unification is left passive, without an agent. In Ezekiel 16:8, we see an explicit example of marriage being a covenant between a man and a woman, consummated by sex. If a marriage covenant is before God, then God is the unifying agent who made the two into one flesh when the couple consummated their marriage, and his hand in the matter should be respected. This also explains why the blood of a virgin is important to the marriage process – it’s a blood covenant before God. So, if God wasn’t involved in the sexual relationship, the maintained status of being ‘one flesh’ isn’t morally binding, and can be dissolved at will.
This argument isn’t bad for someone who doesn’t know what the text actually says, but the truth is it’s absolute horseshit in terms of an argument. The sort of an argument a well-trained Jesuit would never make.
“Genesis 2 explains why sex exists: because the woman was taken from the man, so that man would not be alone.”
You left out the command “be fruitful and multiply.” Commands are implemented with laws, statutes and ordinances. What is the natural function of woman? To be a wife and helpmeet to her husband and a mother to his children.
“It is a declarative passage, explaining a phenomenon – not defining a moral law”
In other words, we have no law of marriage, no way of specifically knowing when a man and woman are married, even though the penalty for adultery is death. Right. God puts the death penalty on something that can’t be defined? Please, don’t show this one to your old logic professor. Or, in the alternate, take some courses on logic.
“Christ in Matthew 19 explains that divorce is a separation of what God has put together. Where’s God in Genesis 2:24? Nowhere to to be found – the unification is left passive, without an agent.”
In a word… No. Genesis 2:24 has three elements describing three separate actions.
  1. First we have the status action of the man leaving his father and his mother. With the act of marriage he is creating his own family which will not be under the authority of his father and mother.
  2. Then we have the physical action of the man as he commits to the marriage with the act of having sex with the virgin. In doing so he initiates the marital covenant with the shedding of the virgin’s blood.
  3. Finally we have the spiritual action of God as He seals the covenant of marriage by making the two become one flesh. Thee two shall become one flesh and the words “shall become” are imperative. It “shall” happen.
You are attempting to conflate the physical action of the man with the spiritual action of God, which the Apostle Paul described as a great mystery.
Where is God in Genesis 2:24? We notice that Christ quoted Genesis 2:24 and then specifically stated that God is the one who joined them together. Not the man, but God. Helpfully, with the language of 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, we can see that the man and woman become one body through the action of the man when they have sex. That being the case, the only thing left is the becoming of one flesh which is the only joining mentioned in Genesis 2:24, so by process of elimination God has joined them as one flesh.
That is where God is in Genesis 2:24 and your idea that God is nowhere to be found is pure fantasy.
“If a marriage covenant is before God, then God is the unifying agent who made the two into one flesh when the couple consummated their marriage, and his hand in the matter should be respected.”
First, a study of covenants reveals that they are not “before” God, rather, God is a party to the covenant. The man initiates with blood sacrifice and God plays His role in some way or another. Since we know from the Apostle Paul that the becoming of one flesh is a spiritual joining that he compared to the spiritual joining that occurs when a person becomes a Christian and becomes part of the body of Christ, both of them being a great mystery. Christ said in Matthew 19 that God joined the two together. Not physically, but spiritually as one flesh. The man is the one that joined the two as one body. Therefore it is impossible to say that God does not have His role to play in the marital covenant which is initiated with the shed blood of the virgin when her hymen is broken.
Your following statement reveals you are making the claim that you do not believe there is a marriage covenant that God takes part in, when the Bible clearly says it exists.
This leaves us with civil laws pertaining to sex, virgins, and oaths. Exodus 22:16-17 deals with the seduction of an unbetrothed virgin. It follows a long list of property violation and reimbursement laws, so I consider this a civil law rather than a moral law. In your Twenty-Four Words piece, you make the error of striking through ‘to be’ in your second infographic.
  • The commandment was given, be fruitful and multiply.
  • The law of marriage (Genesis 2:24) was given to implement the commandment.
  • The judgement of Genesis 3:16 was given and God commanded, speaking to the wife, of the husband, “he shall rule over you.”
  • The law of vows was given to implement the commandment.
A careful study of both the law of marriage and the law of vows reveals an apparent loophole, in that with the act of marriage the eligible virgin is married to the man to took her virginity. With her marriage she is no longer under the authority of her father but now under the authority of her husband. The father is in complete authority over his daughter and possesses the authority to sell her as a servant or concubine. He has the authority to give her in marriage to whomever he wishes. The law of vows gives him the authority and responsibility of reviewing all vows and agreements his daughter makes and he may annul any of them at his discretion in the day he hears of them.
The judgement of Exodus 22:16-17 resolved two issues. The first was whether a man might seduce a woman and thereby marry her without agreeing to pay anything to her father. The reason why it might be important for the man to pay the father a bride price is irrelevant because the question before Moses was whether in the absence of any agreement, the man might avoid such payments now that he has married the woman according to the law of marriage.
Second, is the agreement the daughter made to give the man her virginity, which resulted in her marriage, subject to his review. The answer is yes. That means that the father can annul the marriage after the fact in the day he hears of it.
The judgment of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 resolved the question of what happens when an eligible virgin is raped. The qualifier “if they are discovered” provides a second witness and if so they are married. The witnesses prove the act was against the will of the daughter which means no agreement was made on her part that her father could annul. Lacking the authority of Numbers 30:5, the father has no authority to annul the marriage and so he can’t.
As to your assumption that I erred, you are incorrect. The strike-through (to be)is because the words “to be” are not in the original Hebrew text. They are a translator addition and the NASB puts them in italics for that reason.
“If you examine how that word is used throughout the Old Testament, you’ll see it pertains to the process of becoming a wife, not an existing wife.”
This is similar to the shop-worn argument that “dabaq” (translated as the word “cleave” in Genesis 2:24) means commitment, not sex. Because every other time “dabaq” is used it means commitment. The problem with this line of argument is that when we compare and contrast Genesis 2:24, Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we see that your argument doesn’t hold up. For example, in Deuteronomy 22:29, the phrase “shall become” (shall become married) is the exact same phrase used in Genesis 2:24 where it says the two “shall become one flesh.” This is not a future action, it is imperative, a judgment of what is. It has happened. There is no other action required, nothing further to do, they are married. Note also that the word translated as “become” is just as legitimately translated as the word “be” rather than “become.”
Notice that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 describes the virgin not betrothed who is raped (violated). The judgment is that if they are discovered, they are married. There is no further action to take. No other requirements are left to be fulfilled, they are married. The same situation exists in Exodus 22:16, in which the father does not annul the marriage. They are already married and there is no further action to take to make them any more married. As to the dowry, consider Jacob. He worked seven years, was tricked and got the wrong wife. Then he received Rachel and was obligated to work another seven years after marrying her.
Also note that the emphatic construction promotes payment associated with marriage, rather than a marriage itself (contrast Deut. 22).
You take this perspective because you conflate the payment of the dowry with the act of becoming married. They are separate. That passage is more logically read from a practical perspective as stated above in the first part of the two issues being decided: that the man cannot seduce a woman and then claim that because he never had an agreement with the father that he doesn’t have to pay the dowry. The dowry can be a tool for the father to use, but this really isn’t about the money but rather about the authority of the father over his daughter. Yet, this is exactly the kind of statement that leads the unwary off the path and down the Easter Bunny’s rabbit hole.
“Since sex without a covenant isn’t sufficient for marriage, there is no reason to suppose such a couple is married.”
Wow. There is so much Jesuit mind-trick in this statement, it’s a classic for those who study this sort of chicanery. Pure Jesuit, it’s the use of the truth to tell a lie. Observe that the correctness of this statement, which can be both the absolute truth or a misleading falsehood, depends upon the character of the individuals involved.
  • If the woman is not a virgin but is eligible to marry, sex in and of itself is not sufficient to create a marriage and in the absence of her affirmative consent to marry the act of having sex does not create a marriage. Such an act is only forbidden if the woman is a prostitute, but if she is not a prostitute the act is in no way forbidden regardless of the marital status of the man. There is no sin.
  • If the woman is an eligible virgin, not encumbered by a betrothal or other restrictions by her father and the man is eligible to marry her, sex with her will positively result in the initiation of the covenant of marriage, God will unite the two as one flesh and they are married with the act of having sex. Such an act is the consummation of their marriage and it is impossible that it is the “sin” of “premarital sex.”
I’m not saying you’re a Jesuit or any of the other flavor of Catholic apologist because you’ve already made some arguments and statements that are way off their script. However, that last statement is the kind of thing I get from them. Using ambiguous statements like that, ones that under certain conditions can be true but are generally false…. that’s their stock in trade.
Consider this excellent rhetorical argument:
“Premarital sex is a sin and it does not make you married, you must have the ceremony!”
There is an extremely narrow condition under which that is a true statement, which is in the case of a man who first agreed with the father of the bride on a specific period of time for the betrothal, followed by a ceremony, and then the betrothed couple had sex prior to the ceremony. In that case, the act of violating his word (Numbers 30:2) would be the sin (the sex is not a sin because there is no prohibition) and since the woman is not eligible to marry him until the betrothal period is complete and the ceremony is accomplished, the sex with the virgin doesn’t make them married.
However, this is a condition that is so rare as to be practically non-existent today and those who make such a statement know that, as well as the fact that others define the terms in a different way. Still, they were thinking of the condition in which it would be a true statement so they did not technically tell a lie and they can claim a clear conscience. Simple claims that the statement is a lie will fail because there is a condition under which the statement can be true. Such a statement is made by those who know better in order to deceive those who don’t.

A Tired Old Argument

Artisanal Toad7 Comments
Commenter RichardP makes an old argument, one that really should be picked apart because it encapsulates so much error. Rather than respond in-line in the comments I decided to turn this into a post. Recently he said:
Re. Therefore, what God has joined together ….
Will God ever join together an unbeliever with an unbeliever? A believer with an unbeliever? (Rhetorical)
The question for which the Bible gives no definitive answer is “What constitutes a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ?” .
If God does not join together a believer with an unbeliever, then sex with a virgin does not automatically create a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ” They would both have to be believers, and only God can see the heart. Society, not so much.
(If God DOES join together a believer with an unbeliever, then that opens a whole nother theological can of worms. Primarily because it would give theological backing to the command to “man up and marry that slut” meme.)
Society cannot abide uncertainty. Particularly around marriage (are they married or not) – due to laws regarding who gets to inherit what. So – society creates artificial boundaries where the Bible is not clear what those boundaries are (this is marriage, this is not). In an imperfect world, where there must be a clear demarcation upon which the division and inheritance of property can rest, society is compelled to create such boundaries, artificial as they may be. It makes sense that the church would follow along.
For – in spite of all you say AT, the Bible gives no clear demarcation of what creates a union of which God says “Therefore, what God has joined together …” Because we do not have the skiz to say for certain who is a believer and who is not. But the succession of property rights demands a clear answer.
It basically boils down to that.
RichardP asks a question that isn’t that difficult to answer, then claims it to be rhetorical as if it really doesn’t matter. The problem is that it is an excellent question that can easily be answered.
“Will God ever join together an unbeliever with an unbeliever”
For those who don’t know the Bible well, this is a great strawman argument and that’s what RichardP is trying to do, but for those who do know what the Bible says it’s the key to unraveling this knot of error. Let’s first make some observations.
The first commandment to mankind was be fruitful and multiply.
The first law was Genesis 2:24, the law of marriage.
The first judgment on mankind was Genesis 3:16.
All of these things occurred in the Garden of Eden with just Adam and Eve, the mother and father of all.
The first commandment applied to all of mankind, the law of marriage applied to all of mankind and the fact is that all snakes crawl on their bellies, all women bring forth their children in pain and all women are hypergamous and desire a man who is fit to rule them. To ask whether the believer can be joined to the unbeliever is to ask if Genesis 2:24 still means what it says.
One must ask whether God changed, or whether the law of marriage still applies as written. Either God changed or He didn’t. Either God lied or He didn’t. Either Genesis 2:24 means what it says or it doesn’t. Scripture helpfully answers these questions.
So, it follows that the answer to the question is yes, God will join together an unbeliever and a believer as one flesh if, according to the law of marriage, they marry. We know this because Scripture says “the two shall become one flesh.” Christ helpfully pointed out that God is the one who makes them one flesh in Matthew 19. Since God does not change and God does not lie, this must apply to all people of all times of all situations.
The command in 2nd Corinthians 6:14 that forbids the believer from marrying the unbeliever is necessary because they can be married. Genesis 2:24 states that when the man has sex with the virgin, God shall make the two become one flesh. Therefore it will happen, which is why the command was given. Otherwise it would be unnecessary.
The idea that some sort of “theological can of worms” is opened and some credence is given to the meme of “man up and marry the slut” is preposterous. RichardP might have read the relevant posts that I’ve written on the issue, but he clearly does not understand that the “slut” was married to the man she gave her virginity to and unless he’s dead or she’s a reader of my blog and has taken my advice, the “slut” is not actually a slut at all. She’s a married woman who has been committing adultery. It is not possible to marry a woman who is already married.
“The question for which the Bible gives no definitive answer is “What constitutes a union of which it can be said “What God has joined together … ?”
That is a lie. RichardP claims the Bible is not clear on what constitutes a marriage because it doesn’t define the spiritual act of becoming of one flesh. Richard, that’s what we call a non sequitur. It does not follow.
Sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her because that’s what the Bible says and this blog has carefully pointed that out repeatedly. Did the man and the eligible virgin engage in the act of marriage? Yes or no? If yes, they are married. If no, they are not. Her consent is not required and as we see in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the rape of a virgin who is not betrothed, if they are discovered, results in her marriage to the man who raped her.
Interestingly Deuteronomy 22, which is the only passage in Scripture that discusses the crime of rape, only lists three categories of women. The eligible virgin, the betrothed virgin and the married woman. Not mentioned at all is the widow or divorce woman. Does this mean that God has no problem with the rape of widows and divorced women? No, it’s evidence that the issue is complex, because if for whatever reason the widow or divorced woman claimed that she agreed to be married to the guy who raped her, they’re married.
The word “irony” comes to mind. Some might think of “poetic justice” but the fact is, under the system God set up any man should think long and hard about the consequences of putting his penis in a woman’s vagina before doing it. Because it’s the act of marriage.
Numbers 30:9 clearly says the widow and the divorced woman (the two primary examples of women who are not virgins and not married) are held accountable for their agreements without the oversight and accountability of any man. 1st Corinthians 7:39 says the Christian woman who is not a virgin and not married is free to marry whom she wishes, but only in the Lord. As to the women who desire to marry, Paul says “let them marry.” From the context and in keeping with the rules already laid out, Paul is speaking of women who are not virgins and no longer under the authority of her father or another man. Clearly her consent to marry is required because she is not a virgin.
The Bible is very clear on what the physical standards for marriage are, which is to be expected because adultery is a death penalty offense. How can someone be put to death for adultery if one cannot define when a person is married? The apostle Paul stated that both the becoming one flesh in marriage as well as becoming part of the body of Christ was a great mystery. Yet, to follow RichardP’s logic, since becoming one body with Christ as part of the body of believers is a great mystery, we should institute arbitrary requirements for becoming a Christian. You know, because certainty.
Well, no.
The Bible is very clear what physical acts a person must perform in order to become a Christian, stating that the person who believes in their heart and confesses with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord shall be saved. We can hear the words and get an idea of what happened in the heart by seeing what kind of life they live. Witness the standard for how to tell if that person who claims to be a Christian actually is a Christian, found in 1st John, chapter two. The fact is, our lack of understanding as to how the spiritual joining of the believer into the body of Christ occurs in no way changes the very real physical requirements that the Bible provides for becoming a Christian. In the same way, our lack of understanding about how the spiritual joining of the two as one flesh in marriage occurs does not change the very real physical requirements that the Bible specifically lists for becoming married.
Did the man have sex with a virgin woman that he was eligible to marry? He is married to her if the answer is yes.
Did the man have sex with a non-virgin woman who was eligible to marry him, after she agreed to marry him? He is married to her if the answer is yes.
This standard is not difficult to understand, there is no uncertainty. God even helpfully provided women with a hymen. If one understands what the Bible says about marriage, it becomes apparent that the woman’s hymen serves multiple functions, all of which are related to the act of marriage and the marriage that occurs when the virgin has sex for the first time.
It’s also true that lots of bells and whistles can be added to this, with betrothal periods and agreements between the father and husband-to-be and ceremonies and celebrations and obnoxious mother-in-laws… but the basic requirements stay the same. If other requirements are added, then according to Numbers 30:2 the men are required to keep them, but they are voluntary. These sorts of agreements affect the eligibility of the woman to marry, they don’t change the standards of when and how the couple is married.
Hidden behind this ridiculous argument is the idea that some authority figure in the form of the church or the state is required in order for a marriage to be legitimate. Because of property? No, because of power and control. That is the argument the Easter Bunny made well over a thousand years ago and it keeps cropping up, but that isn’t part of the system that God designed. It isn’t that God’s design wasn’t clear on who is and who is not married, it’s evidence that the Easter Bunny rejected God’s design and instituted his own as a scheme to gain power and control.