A recent commenter popped in to display his opinions and got it wrong across the board. Regular readers will be able to spot the errors:
I’m not voicing disagreement with your statement that sex=marriage, but in “corinthians 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”
It seems clearly to me that sex outside of marriage (man+virgin) is immoral, though it’s not written for a pagan audience I don’t see why the prohibition of visiting prostitutes would be limited to christian men. I’ve thought a lot about the sex=marrriage thing before, dropped it, picked it up, dropped it again but I’ve enjoyed your argument on the passages. On the whole it’s very troubling, as troubling as jesus’ revelation that divorce didn’t unbind couples and those who re-married were living in adultery, adultery being a serious serious crime (notice when king david is being accused by the prophet through the story of the rich man and the poor mans sheep davids murder is completely left out! and david begs for his life) of course jesus’ answer to the apostles is simply marriage isn’t for everyone and those who can take the burden should and those who can’t shouldn’t.
You may want to read that several times. It’s like something you’d find over on Dalrock’s blog. Or maybe at the Millar Bible College.
First, the “I’m not voicing disagreement” statement is completely disingenuous. Of course he’s here to voice disagreement. But that’s the thing to say these days. Kind of like saying “I’m not telling you those pants make your ass look fat, but…. speaking of talking whales…”
Then he quotes a passage that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Paul said that because of “immoralities” each husband should have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband. What are the immoralities that prompted that statement? They are the sexual sins listed in the Law that constitute sexual immorality. I covered this in depth in this post. Generally, sexual immorality is defined as this:
Incest, Adultery, Bestiality, Male Homosexuality, Idolatrous Sex and Having Intercourse With A Woman Who Is Menstruating.
A mere 2 chapters prior to this passage, the Apostle Paul took the entire church at Corinth to task because a man “had his father’s wife” which was an adulterous incest situation specifically forbidden in the Law 4 times (Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20. It’s a combination of covetousness, incest, adultery (his father was still alive) and not honoring his father. This is the sort of immorality the church of Corinth tolerated and the Apostle Paul has just called them out on it. Did anyone notice that “sex outside marriage” isn’t on that list of things that are sexual immorality? That’s because it is not a sin in and of itself. It could be, such as in cases of adultery, but sex outside marriage is not forbidden for men as such anywhere in the Bible. For women, sex outside of marriage is always adultery.
Paul says that because of all this Adultery, Incest, Bestiality and Male Homosexuality, each husband is to have his own wife (and not some other man’s wife, like the idiot who had his father’s wife) and each wife is to have her own husband (and not some other woman’s husband- which is adultery). All of this is easily understandable unless you’re a churchian. Look at what happens when a churchian reads it:
It seems clearly to me that sex outside of marriage (man+virgin) is immoral.
Immoral means sinful and the Apostle Paul told us what sin is (Romans 4:15 and 5:13). Sin is a violation of the Law and if there is no violation there is no sin imputed. That said, there is no prohibition, anywhere, that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Which means, according to the Apostle Paul, sex outside of marriage is not immoral (wrong and sinful). So… did the Apostle Paul lie? Or is someone else lying?
It is permitted for you to claim such a thing is immoral for you as a matter of conscience because your faith is weak, because we know that which is not of faith is sin. To claim it’s wrong for anyone else is a violation of the law (Deut 4:2 and 12:32) and you, sir, are in sin. In addition it makes you a false teacher and is a case of you judging your neighbor who has committed no sin (forbidden and thus sinful). Wouldn’t it be better if you studied your Bible and grew in faith so you wouldn’t make statements like this again?
I don’t see why the prohibition of visiting prostitutes would be limited to christian men.
Obviously he has not read the prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. Non-Christian men are not capable of joining the members of Christ with a whore because they are not in Christ, therefore the restriction applies only to Christian men. Further, this is one of those points at which had the Apostle Paul made this a general statement, he would have been guilty of adding to the Law. He did not, this is one of the special “house rules” that apply only to Christians.
On the whole it’s very troubling, as troubling as jesus’ revelation that divorce didn’t unbind couples and those who re-married were living in adultery
This statement indicates he has no idea what Scripture says about divorce.
For those under the Law (non-Christians) the husband may divorce his wife for her adultery and if he does so they are unbound and she is free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24;1-4, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:4-9). If she has not committed sexual immorality the divorce is illegitimate and they are still married, which is why she would commit adultery if she joins herself to any other man. This subject is very difficult for Christians because of all the lies they have been told about it.
According to the instruction of the Risen Lord (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives (there is no “exception” for adultery), with the effect that for Servants of Christ, the marriage standard has been returned to the original (Genesis 2:24). Churchians don’t understand Genesis 2:24 because they don’t study, but I’ve written about this subject area over and over and over again to explain Genesis 2:24, along with all things associated with Biblical sexual morality. There is even a handy chart with all the Scriptures laid out to explain this.
Any Christian woman married to a Christian man is bound to her husband for as long as he lives because for two married Christians, there is no divorce. The only way out for those modern women who have an unintentional marriage is for her father to forbid it. The husband is forbidden to divorce his wife and no wife has the authority to divorce her husband anywhere in Scripture, for any reason, regardless of his behavior. You may want to check 1st Peter 3:1-6 to confirm that. The Christian wife is commanded not to leave her husband but if she does, she is commanded to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
A Christian woman in an unequally yoked marriage, if she is abandoned by her unbelieving husband, she is free and no longer bound (1st Corinthians 7:12-15). That might require the legal proceeding of a divorce by civil authorities today, but the actions of a court judge do not unbind her. She is already no longer bound because her unbelieving husband left her and she is free to (remarry) anyone she pleases as long as he is in the Lord (1st Corinthians 7:39) because she is no longer bound- as if he were dead.
Any man is free to take more than one wife if he wishes, so no woman can leave her husband and thus force him into celibacy. The reason there is no prohibition on a man having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry is because sex is the act by which a man marries a woman and a man may have more than one wife. To forbid such a thing is to forbid marriage. To say a man is “cheating” on his wife in doing so is to say a man can only have one wife. That is contrary to Scripture’s teaching as well as adding/subtracting from the Law, which is a sin.
That, of course, drives churchians into fits of feminist outrage because they do not understand that a man can only commit adultery by having sex with another man’s wife. Because sex with another man’s wife is the definition of adultery (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10). And God does not change, He said so Himself, repeatedly. Churchians have a great deal of difficulty with this, which is understandable, because as God explained, His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. The problem with churchians is they aren’t tall enough for this ride.
Scripture contains no requirement for a public ceremony or witnesses or the permission of any third party in order for a man to marry a woman. Unless the man voluntarily agrees to such things they are not required and no matter what kind of wedding celebrations or third party approvals they might be required to perform by agreement, sex is still the act of marriage and the way a marriage is begun.
jesus’ answer to the apostles is simply marriage isn’t for everyone and those who can take the burden should and those who can’t shouldn’t.
That is completely incorrect. The context of Matthew 19:10-12 is the command of God to be fruitful and multiply. Those who are born Eunuchs and those who are made eunuchs are not able to do so through no fault of their own and cannot marry, not being able to perform the act of marriage. The only allowable reason for disregarding the command to be fruitful (take a wife) was in order to further the kingdom of God.
And Finally
Churchians have a problem with selective reading comprehension and they’re easily confused. Notice this:
(notice when king david is being accused by the prophet through the story of the rich man and the poor mans sheep davids murder is completely left out! and david begs for his life)
Even in his selective reading, our intrepid churchian gets it wrong because he focuses on the simplistic story designed to sway the emotion (the way a preacher would) instead of the cold, hard text. And… he throws a lie in there too, just like the preachers are wont to do. David did not beg for his life, he begged for the life of his son. Notice what the text of 2nd Samuel 12:7-15 actually says (emphasis added):
7 Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. 8 I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! 9 Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’” 13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.”And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
Keep in mind that the original objection was a man having sex with a virgin outside marriage and all of this is very troubling to him because it leads to adultery! Which is a very serious crime! Ye-gads, look at that story about King David!
Never mind that God was specifically condoning David having multiple wives and God took credit for giving David multiple wives and said if it wasn’t enough He’d have given David even more wives. Churchians are blind to this sort of thing. They prefer sticking to stories like the one that Nathan told in the beginning, which was designed to put David in the proper frame of mind to hear about what David had done.
In the final analysis our boy Aardvark did not get a single point correct and he lied, repeatedly. And the smug self-assurance of the blind man who is unaware he is blind comes through with every point he tried to make.
Seeing The Truth, Refusing To Believe
While all that is bothersome, what is really disturbing is this:
I’ve thought a lot about the sex=marrriage thing before, dropped it, picked it up, dropped it again but I’ve enjoyed your argument on the passages. On the whole it’s very troubling
The truth is “very troubling” because after looking at it, he understands the implications, which is where the entire push-back about “sex outside marriage” comes from. The concept of “sex outside marriage” is to deny that marriage is formed with the act of sex. If one calls it “sex before marriage” it’s easy to tag it as being “immoral” and therefore it can’t be wedding sex. Which allows the churchians to ignore the issue of all the adultery around them. That they are participating in… because they know they didn’t get their “wife’s” virginity.
The question is whether God will ignore it and the answer from Scripture is an unequivocal “No.” It is written: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”
It is also written:“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1st Corinthians 6:9-10, emphasis added)
What do you think will happen when they scream that they didn’t know?
It is written: “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” (Luke 12:47-48, emphasis added)
That’s right, they still get a beating, just not as bad as the one who intentionally disobeyed. But remember that part about teachers being held to a higher standard?
The longer y’all straddle the fence the worse it will be and all you’ll wind up with is a sore crotch. Jesus, speaking to His servants, said “Love one another.” I’m convinced that most of you churchians don’t actually know Him, but I’m pretty sure some of you do. So I’ll just leave you with this song:
In my post I didn’t/don’t dispute the idea that sex constitutes a marital bind, that’s all I meant
>Then he quotes a passage that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Pauls statement that it is wrong to be with a woman because of immoralities doesn’t specifically bind christians but is a statement on its basic immorality (as you said it’s because qualifiers “incest, adultery, etc”, none of which I disputed). Which is what led into my second statement on how I don’t see how non-christians are exempted from partaking in prostitutes, if “For women, sex outside of marriage is always adultery.” then a non-christian man who takes a prostitute is an adulterer.
My point is they’re capable of committing the same immoralities that would make it wrong for a man to be with a woman, in the case of visiting prostitutes it’d be adultery. The special offense a christian makes visiting a prostitute doesn’t mean a non-christian visiting a prostitute is inoffensive.
“If it’s immoral to have sex outside of deflowering a virgin/marriage, then a non-christian visiting a prostitute is immoral”
I don’t understand why you took this avenue against me, I never claimed anything beyond the text and me providing the parentheses (man+virgin) was me defining marriage as taking a virgin. I don’t make the statement that it’s innately immoral outside of the law so saying that sin/immorality is only that which is outside of the law isn’t relevant, if incest was universally immoral and needed no law forbidding it adams children would’ve been profoundly immoral in breeding and God would’ve been furious with abraham.
I don’t see why not mentioning the exception for adultery spoken of by Jesus overrides it.
How? Jesus who brings up the old standard is the one who says that is acceptable to divorce for sexual immorality, if Jesus explains the old standard and says that you may divorce only in case of sexual immorality a standard that said you couldn’t would be different/new.
I agree.
>Scripture contains no requirement for a public ceremony or witnesses
I agree.
>That is completely incorrect.
I see, I was wrong.
You’re right, I had read into the priests assertion that david wouldn’t die after he says he sinned that he expected to die and then confused the events. The emphasis was helpful I had blown the story out of proportion and forgotten the priests statements, his sin of murder was brought before him.
That is not what I said or thought, I never thought having sex with a virgin was wrong I thought that since sex with a virgin constituted marriage every subsequent person who had sex with her was an adulterer and she an adulteress, it’s a troubling thought which is why I struggled with it but I never got past the clarity and simple truth of it which is why I could never put it away completely and why I was convinced of it after I started reading your blog.
>“If it’s immoral to have sex outside of deflowering a virgin/marriage, then a non-christian visiting a prostitute is immoral”
“The immoralities that exist that would make it wrong to be with a woman still exist for non-christians, visiting prostitutes is immoral for non-christians.”