Month: September 2017

Questions and Objections, Part III, Sex With An Eligible Virgin = Marriage

Artisanal Toad32 Comments

More Objections

 

“If sex = marriage why does Deuteronomy 22:28-29 specifically state the virgin only becomes the wife if they are found out. In that vein why does it further state she shall be his wife because he humbled her. Why would God need to specify that if as you say she was his wife at the time of penetration? If she was already his wife God would not need to specify that she isn’t his wife until they are found out and he pays 50 shekels.”

 

We have three judgments that help us understand Genesis 2:24. Two of the judgments concerned the conflict of Law between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:5. Does the father’s authority to forbid any agreement his daughter makes extend to her agreement to marry (have sex) which is then followed by intercourse? The answer is yes. But, what if she didn’t make any agreement? That was the point of having witnesses to the rape. As they say, “you can’t rape the willing.” This is what I wrote in the comments under “Righteous Prostitutes, Spreading Their Legs Free of Sin” on Dalrock’s blog:

 

The eligible virgin is married when she has sex. Because that’s what Genesis 2;24 says. God provided us with three judgments that explain this.
1) The first judgement is found at Exodus 22:16-17, the case of the virgin who is not betrothed (meaning she’s eligible to be married) who is seduced (she agreed to have sex) and the question is whether her father forbids her agreement to marry the guy. According to Numbers 30, as her father he has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement she makes in the day he hears of it. In the day he hears of it he can either say nothing and she’s bound by that vow or agreement, or he can forbid it. Exodus 22:16-17 explains how it works in either case. In verse 16 the father says nothing, they are married and her husband has to pay the bride price for his wife. In verse 17, the father forbids her agreement to marry, refusing to give her to the man who seduced her. They are not married and he has to pay the price for virgins.
2) The second judgment is found in Deuteronomy 22:23-27 and it concerns the case of the betrothed virgin who has sex. Because she is not an eligible virgin (she’s betrothed), sex with her (both willing and unwilling) does not create a marriage and the man who does it gets put to death for the crime of adultery. She may or may not be put to death depending on the circumstances.
3) The third judgment, found a bit later at verses 28-29, is the case of the eligible virgin (she is not betrothed) who is raped. If the rape is discovered (meaning it really was rape), she obviously didn’t make any agreement her father can forbid so she’s married to the man who took her virginity. Even though he raped her. Because when the eligible virgin has sex, she’s married to the man who got her virginity and quite obviously, her consent is not necessary.
Therefore, the correct exegesis of Genesis 2:24 is simple: the eligible virgin is married when she has sex, with or without her consent.

 

Your asked:

 

“Why would God need to specify that if as you say she was his wife at the time of penetration?”

 

First, notice what that passage does not say, which is anything about the virgin who says she was raped but the rape was not discovered (meaning there were no witnesses). It’s a he-said she-said issue. What happens then? The issue devolves to the authority of the father and it gets treated as a seduction (c.f. Exodus 22:16-17). Based on his decision she may or not be married. However, in the case of a rape that is discovered, she obviously made no agreement and there are witness to the fact she made no agreement, thus there is nothing for her father to forbid. She is married according to the standard of Genesis 2:24 because they had sex and the virgin’s consent or lack of consent is irrelevant because she has no agency.
You state:

 

If she was already his wife God would not need to specify that she isn’t his wife until they are found out and he pays 50 shekels.

 

The text does not say she is not his wife until he pays the 50 shekels, it says he must pay the fixed price of 50 shekels of silver AND she shall be his wife. They are married and that is the amount he owes her father. Look at the example of Jacob and Rachel. Jacob had to work for 7 years to marry Rachel. Did he have to wait for 7 years? No, he married Rachel and then he had to work for Laban for another 7 years. He was obligated to pay the bride price and he was married.
You also asked:

 

“why does it further state she shall be his wife because he humbled her?”

 

Actually, the original text does not say that. Look at the verse from the NASB:

 

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.

 

Now, let’s just change the punctuation (which isn’t in the original text) and see what happens.

 

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall become his wife. Because he has violated her, he cannot divorce her all his days.

 

There is no punctuation in the original text. The bias of the translators is at work here and that goes back all the way to Jerome, one of the men who claimed that marriage is by consent, not sex. Changing the punctuation changes the meaning completely. As is, the rape victim is being punished by being forced to marry her rapist. However, the text just as easily supports the point I have been making and the difference between the two was a decision some translators made.
Better yet, let’s remove the punctuation.

 

then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver and she shall become his wife because he has violated her he cannot divorce her all his days.

 

Where do you put the punctuation, and why? Do you want this to read that God requires rape victims be punished by being forced to marry their rapist? Hopefully not.
They are married because they met the requirements of Genesis 2:24. The man has to pay a high bride price and she shall be his wife (imperative- meaning she is his wife and nothing changes that). Because he has humbled her, he has his right to divorce her permanently taken away. Which means that regardless of her behavior, he can never divorce her, because he violated her, taking her against her will in front of witnesses.
Consider Exodus 21:22-25, which contains the concept of just punishment: “Let the punishment fit the crime.”

 

“you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.”

 

He wanted her so bad that he raped her into marriage, violating her in front of witnesses, humiliating her, humbling her? How does the punishment fit the crime? First of all he’s going to pay more than double the Temple redemption price for her (the price for virgins) and second, he’s stuck with her all the days of his life no matter what she does. He wanted her? He’s got her now. For all his days. That’s letting the punishment fit the crime.
To claim (as does the Dalrock doctrine) that the community forced them to marry as punishment for raping her is to claim that God punishes rape victims for the “crime” of being raped. Not only does that slander the character of God, it is a direct conflict (an antinomy) with Exodus 21:22-25 and Genesis 2:24. In addition, it is a claim that the community has the authority to require a man marry a woman. No, in Genesis 2:24 the authority to marry was granted to “a man” and no-one else.
Again, this is a judgment that results from the conflict of law between Genesis 2:24 and Numbers 30:5. The question is whether the father’s authority to forbid his daughter’s marriage when she was seduced also applies when she is publicly raped. The answer is no, but there had to be witnesses that established the fact she was raped in deed rather than just in accusation. Because we all know that girls will cry “RAPE” if they find it in their best interest to do so.

The Linguistics Argument Against “Sex = Marriage”

AmicusC said:

 

it appears you argument hinges on cleave to the wife as the part regarding penetrative sex i am curious if u can identify why cleave = penetration especially as I don’t believe the bible requires penetrative sex with God yet asks us to cleave to him see for example Deuteronomy 13:4
4 Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
But I guess our definitions of kollao differ yours means penetrate mine means:
kollao, “to adhere to,” or “to join one’s self to.” This meaning is the reverse of the preceding. The Psalmist speaks of his tongue cleaving to the roof of his mouth (Psalms 137:6). We are told that a man should cleave unto his wife (Genesis 2:24;Matthew 19:5). It is said that Ruth clave unto her mother-in-law (Ruth 1:14), and that certain men clave unto Paul (Acts 17:34; compare Acts 4:23; 11:23 margin).
“Cleave” is also used in this sense to describe one’s adherence to principles. Paul admonished the Romans to cleave to that which is good (Romans 12:9).

 

In the Hebrew Scriptures the word “dabaq” is used 54 times and when used of human relationships it generally means to cling to without letting go, to be clung to tightly, to hold fast, to be committed to. Except for Genesis 2:24 and arguably, 1st Kings 11:2, where it means sex. However, there is a duality of meaning involved in those two passages. Within the context of marriage the act it refers to is sex, the meaning of the act is commitment on the part of the man.
When used in Genesis 2:24, describing the creation of marriage, keep in mind that the act of penetrative intercourse is a man’s commitment to marriage. Every time. Imagine a word that means clinging to without letting go, being clung to tightly and the kind of sex that is epitomized by a man who had a thousand wives. That’s the picture of a couple of newlyweds on their wedding night. And as used in Genesis 2:24, the word means the act of sex because that is the God-given wedding ceremony by which a man marries a woman. By that act the man gives his commitment to the marriage.
How do we know that is what the word means as it is specifically used in Genesis 2:24?
When Genesis 2:24 got translated into Greek the word “dabaq” was translated as the Greek word “kollao” and not surprisingly, just like the word “dabaq” the word “kollao” means to glue, to unite, to join; to knit together. When used of human relationships it confers the idea of faithfulness and loyalty. Notice the similarities with the Hebrew word “dabaq” and how they both demonstrate the man’s commitment to marriage every time he has intercourse. Because the act of marriage is sexual intercourse and by that act the man signifies his commitment to marriage.
The text of 1st Corinthians 6:16 says “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” The word “kollao” (translated as “joins”) is used in this passage within the context of Genesis 2:24 to mean sex with a woman that results in becoming one flesh. The act of becoming one body (sexual intercourse) causes God to make the two one flesh (c.f. Matthew 19:5-6).
But, how do we know that in the context of marriage it means sex and not a commitment ceremony? Perhaps God is telling us not to marry prostitutes.
Why do men visit prostitutes? The hallmark of a prostitute is (and it always has been) that at some point the prostitute spreads her legs receptively to allow the man to penetrate her. Men visit prostitutes to have sex, but not just any sex. They visit prostitutes to have sex that will not result in marriage, because the one thing prostitutes don’t do is consent to be married to their customers. By definition, what prostitutes do not provide is faithfulness or loyalty because they are mercenary. As the old saying goes, “you don’t pay a prostitute to have sex with you, you pay her to leave when you’re done with her.”

 

Do men visit prostitutes for commitment, or sex?

 

The traditional argument of the church (after they adopted the consent model of creating marriage) was that the Hebrew word “dabaq” meant commitment and that meant a man had to commit to his wife in a public ceremony, which formed the marriage, then they had sex, which they claimed was the becoming one flesh part of Genesis 2:24. Or not. The church claimed that sex was immaterial to marriage because marriage was all about consent.

Understanding Translation

When we look at a specific word, we first look at all the other uses of that word and the context that word is used in. From that we get a sense of how the word should be translated (the meaning) in the verse in question. In the case of the word “dabaq” the word is only used twice within the context of a husband-wife relationship, in Genesis 2:24 and in 1st Kings 11:2. One might argue that Solomon loved being committed to his 700 wives and 300 concubines, but any reasonable observer would reach the conclusion that a much better translation is that Solomon loved having sex with them.
Why would that word be translated as commitment instead of sex in 1st Kings 11:2? Because tradition. Keep in mind that the man who did the first official translation of the Bible was Jerome and he is famous for his hatred of sex. In fact, it was his position that sex (even within marriage) and salvation were incompatible. Bible translators are resistant to change and give a great deal of weight to how any given meaning of a word has traditionally been translated. They are reluctant to make changes, especially if changing the meaning of a word results in a major doctrinal change.
So, do we go with the most reasonable interpretation and translate the word “dabaq” as used within the context of marriage in 1st Kings 11:2 as “sex”? If we do, that lends a great deal of weight to the argument that as used in Genesis 2:24 in the context of the creation of marriage the word means the act of sexual intercourse. Obviously, anyone defending the tradcon consent model of the creation of marriage (Dalrock’s Special Sauce ™ doctrine) will oppose defining “dabaq” as anything other than commitment because “commitment” supports their pre-existing beliefs.
But what happens when we see “dabaq” translated into Greek within that specific context (meaning the entire verse was translated) so we know what whatever “dabaq” means in Genesis 2:24 is exactly what “kollao” means in Genesis 2:24? Context is key when it comes to translation. Does the usage of the word “kollao” in the New Testament shed any light on the meaning of “dabaq” as it is used in Genesis 2:24? We look and again we see that within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 (Paul quoted part of the verse and kept the same structure so you can’t miss it), the word “kollao” was used to indicate sexual intercourse in such a way that it cannot be denied. There literally cannot be any confusion on this.
Do men go to prostitutes for commitment, or for sex?
Observing that, do we go with the translation by stoic hermit Jerome who hated sex and sexual pleasure, or do we go with the Apostolic translation of the word? This is an either-or choice with huge doctrinal implications because the meaning of the word “dabaq” in Genesis 2:24 has to be the same as the meaning of the word “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6:16.
A = B and B = C, therefore A = C. It’s that simple.
That also means that the word “dabaq” certainly means “sex” as used in 1st Kings 11:2, not “commitment”.
Keep in mind that what I and others like me are able to do today in terms of Bible study was impossible just 30 years ago and at all times previous to that. I’m talking about databases that allow one to do word searches, quickly compare Scripture with Scripture, with cross references to concordances and the ability to drill down to the original languages with more cross references to lexicons and dictionaries. Perhaps nobody noticed until the last couple of years the connection between “dabaq” and “kollao” and the use of “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6;16. Who cares? We know about it now.

The Early Church Went With Jerome’s Translation

The “Patristic Fathers” of the early church hated sex and sought to downplay any mention of sex, claiming that marriage was established by consent, not sex. The theologians who followed in their footsteps made the claim that because the other 53 times the word “dabaq” was used (and especially when used of human relationships) the word meant “commitment”, therefore it must mean “commitment” in Genesis 2:24.
The “interpretation” of that was “that’s the commitment ceremony in front of witnesses! The man and woman must consent to being married and have a ceremony first before they can have sex!” Which meant that the sex part of marriage was the “becoming one flesh” that came after the commitment ceremony.
Over the course of the next 1200 years the church developed the “teachings and traditions of the church” and claimed that their magic book of medieval opinions trumped Scripture. After all, they decided what Scripture was and only they could interpret it! The Pope is infallible!
For those who don’t care for the magic book of medieval opinions and prefer to go with what God said, the problem with Jerome’s interpretation is it won’t work for multiple reasons.
  1. We know that the word “dabaq” means the act of sex because of the Apostolic translation of the word in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and as it turns out, that was the perfect word to use in both Hebrew and Greek because the act of sexual intercourse is the man’s act that demonstrates his commitment to the marriage. The virgin has no agency and her commitment or lack of it is irrelevant.
  2. We know from Matthew 19 that Jesus said God makes the two one flesh, so the act of becoming one flesh is not something the man does, it’s something God does. Paul, in Ephesians 5:28-32 compared the one-flesh union of marriage with the one-body union of the Christian with Christ, making the point that they were both a great mystery. That means “they shall become one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 is referring to what God does as a result of the mans act of penetrating the woman, not the penetration itself.
  3. The “commitment” interpretation created antinomies with other portions of Scripture, which meant that the extra words “to be” had to be inserted into the text of Exodus 22:16 and the outcome of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 had to mean the rape victim was punished for being raped by being forced to marry her rapist. Which creates further antinomies with other passages.
  4. As we’ve seen, the meaning of the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 is the same as the meaning of the word “kollao” as used in 1st Corinthians 6:16. Either they both mean “commitment ceremony” or they both mean “sex” but current doctrine has them defined as “commitment ceremony” in Genesis 2:24 and “sex” in 1st Corinthians 6:16. That is incorrect. Either the virgin is married when she first has sex, or there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids Christian men from having sex with legitimate prostitutes. Which do you think the women of the church will choose?
The rest, as they say, is history.
On to the objections about polygyny in the next post.

Questions and Objections, Part II, The Word δὲ (de) and Linguistic Issues

Artisanal Toad2 Comments

But, What About The Word “But”?

 

If the sexual immorality being discussed has nothing to do with having sexual relations with a women 7:1 has literally no place in this chapter. Moreover if sexual immorality has nothing to do with having sex with a woman not you wife 7:2 would not start with a “but” if sex with women outside of marriage is not immoral then that first line has literally nothing to do with the rest of the chapter. But perhaps God just likes pointless statements.

 

First, we must differentiate between forbidden sexual activity and permitted sexual activity.
Forbidden sexual activity includes adultery, incest, forbidden relationships, male homosexuality, bestiality and even within marriage it includes sex during the proscribed period following childbirth and sex when the woman is menstruating. These are all forbidden to everyone as sexual immorality. In addition, for Christians, sex with prostitutes is forbidden in the New Testament as sexual immorality.
When the term “sexual immorality” is used in the New Testament (porneia), those things are what the word means. Unless some sexual act or relationship is forbidden, it is not sexual immorality.
Permitted sexual relations are those relations that were not forbidden. Because marriage begins with the act of sexual intercourse between a man and woman who are eligible to marry, there is no prohibition on such activity anywhere in Scripture. Sex begins marriage with the act of penetration and obviously such sex is marital sex if the woman is a virgin. If the woman is eligible to marry by not a virgin, she must consent to marry before the sex makes her married.
As to the objection about the word δὲ (de) that AmicusC sees translated as “but” in 1st Corinthians 7:2, there is a problem. The claim is that the use of the word “but” connects the “sex outside marriage” with “sexual immorality” as if “sex outside marriage” is a subset of “sexual immorality” but that’s the opposite of what the word means. It’s usage is that of an adversative particle. From the Wenstrom Bible Ministries word study on de:

 

It is one of the most commonly used Greek particles, used to connect one clause with another when it is felt that there is some contrast between them, though the contrast is often scarcely discernible.
Most common translations of “de”:
  1. “But” when a contrast is clearly implied.
  2. “And” when a simple connective is desired, without contrast;
  3. Frequently, it cannot be translated at all.
The New Thayers Greek-English Lexicon lists the following (pages 125-126):
1. Universally by way of opposition and distinction; it is added to statements opposed to a preceding statement; it opposes persons to persons or things previously mentioned or thought of, -either with strong emphasis; and often;-with a slight discrimination

 

In this case, the word “de” that is translated as the word “but” is used to expose a contrast; an opposition between two statements that is distinct. Sex with an (eligible) woman who is not your wife is permitted, but it is good not to do that. Opposed to that which is permitted is sexual immorality. How does sexual immorality get handled?

 

“Because of [the temptations of] sexual immorality, let each wife have her own husband [having another man is sexual immorality] and let each husband have his own wife [having someone else’s wife or a man is sexual immorality].”

 

See the contrast? Yes, it’s permitted to bang the merry widow down the street, but it’s good not to do that. Sexual immorality is forbidden, it is sin, it is defined in the Law and includes the New Testament prohibition against sex with prostitutes. Paul speaks to the married and explains that they are to get their sexual needs met within their marriage in order that they not be tempted to commit sexual immorality.
That was the general rule to the married: Get your sexual needs met at home with your spouse. What followed in verses 3-7 is instruction on how to go about “having” their own spouse.
And, despite what I just wrote and what I know that means to most Christians, in my opinion if a man is going to have sex with a woman it needs to be within the bond of marriage, but according to God it does not have to be within marriage. For the sake of conscience I believe the question is one of motivation. Is the sex moving them toward marriage or is it merely for pleasure? I realize that everyone wants there to be a rule that says “no sex outside of marriage” but God chose not to do that. And lacking a prohibition it becomes a matter of conscience, an area in which we are commanded not to judge.
Do you trust God to be God, or will you try to correct God and attempt to find a prohibition that God chose not to make?
Then we come to verses 8-9, which is instruction to the widows. Paul says that it’s good if the widows don’t get married and place themselves under the authority of another husband, because if they get married they will be serving their new husband rather than the Lord, but it’s better to marry than to burn. Given what was said in verse 1 along with the totality of what the Bible does and does not say, it is reasonable to read this as saying
“Widows, it’s better if you don’t get remarried, but if you can’t be chaste… instead of finding a FWB relationship to take care of your sexual needs whenever you get horny, find a man and marry him.”
Given how women observably are (hypergamy + solopsism), that’s excellent instruction.

The Biblical Paradigm

Marriage begins with sex because that is the instruction of Genesis 2:24, which is the authority for marriage (the Law of Marriage) that Jesus quoted in Matthew 19. The wedding ceremony described in Genesis 2:24 is sexual intercourse, a simple ceremony that creates a marriage in God’s eyes for all times, for all places and for all people. Perfectly logical, considering that is what God said and because God designed women with a tamper-proof seal on their vagina that is designed to rupture and bleed in the first instance of intercourse. The hymen.
The standard of commitment in marriage is a dual-standard, one for men and another for women. Because men and women are not equal. Men commit to marriage, women are bound in marriage.
  • The man’s commitment is permanent (no divorce) but non-exclusive (polygyny allowed) to his wife.
  • The woman is bound both permanently and exclusively to her husband.
Adultery is the crime/sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband. Therefore adultery requires a married woman. Because a man is authorized to have more than one wife, the only way a husband can commit adultery is to have sex with another man’s wife.
All women are virgins when they marry and the exceptions prove the rule. Prior to marriage they are under their father’s authority. When they marry, the authority over them passes to the husband. See Numbers 30 for an explanation of that authority. Why is it this way? Because God said in Genesis 3:16“he shall rule over you.”
This was repeated in the New Testament with the instruction that wives are to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord, in everything, even if their husband is disobedient to the Word. They are to respect him. And in keeping with the command of Numbers 30 that fathers and husbands are to hold their daughters and wives accountable, we have the command in the New Testament that Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves His church. Which takes us to Revelation 3;19: “Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline, be zealous therefore and repent!” The context of these New Testament commands is Genesis 3:16, “he shall rule over you.”
God does not change.

The Modern Paradigm

Some perverts in the early church decided sex was evil wickedness and everyone should be chaste. They decided to throw out the Biblical dual-standard of sexual morality and marriage and replace them with a new (single) standard of morality that applied to both men and women alike. Over the course of hundreds of years these teachings were solidified into doctrine. Keep in mind that none of this is Biblical:
  • Virginity is the highest calling a woman can have.
  • Sexual desire and sexual pleasure are evil, sinful and wicked.
  • Marriage begins with consent by both parties, not sex.
  • Marriage must have the blessing of the church, in a public ceremony before witnesses.
  • Sex, even within marriage, is at best a necessary evil.
  • Sex outside marriage is the sin of fornication.
  • Sex before marriage is the sin of “pre-marital sex” or fornication.
  • The church has the authority to regulate the marital bed to prevent sexual sin.
  • Men and women are equal in all but authority within marriage.
  • Polygyny is sinful and forbidden.
  • Divorce was forbidden but the church could annul a marriage
This should all sound very familiar because the doctrine has remained remarkably unchanged for the past 1000 years (except for sex being evil and divorce). In adopting this doctrine, the church threw out the Bible’s instruction and replaced it with a combination of Pagan ethics, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. However, they felt it necessary to find a Biblical justification for their new beliefs, which often required significant feats of imaginative interpretation.
What modern Christians are almost completely unaware of is where their doctrines concerning sexual morality came from and the beliefs of the people that put them in place. It’s easy for me to respond to every objection you guys have, from Scripture, because I’m telling the truth about what the Bible actually teaches. You guys are trying to defend doctrines that are based on Pagan ethics, Stoic philosophy and Roman law, from the Bible. Which is why you’re finding zero support when it comes to refuting me.
Other objections and questions will be answered in the next post.

Questions and Objections, Part I, 1st Corinthians 7 and “Sex Outside Marriage”

Artisanal Toad6 Comments

Paradigm Determines Everything

Apparently we need to discuss 1st Corinthians 7 at length to deal with the assertion that it contains a prohibition on “sex outside marriage” and a prohibition on polygyny, which has come up in the comments. Before I begin I’d like to thank our commenters for making rational arguments based on Scripture. It’s quite refreshing after the recent kerfuffle on Dalrock’s blog.
We begin with the question of how we can know that something is sin. As Christians we know something is a sin from one of two ways.
  1. The Written Word: Romans 4:15 and 5:13 says Where there is no Law there is no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed. Contrary to Dalrock’s lie about me, the New Testament instruction applies to the Christian just as much as the Law. Thus, the instruction in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 that prohibits sex with prostitutes is binding and sex with prostitutes is a sin for all Christians. Those things prohibited in the Law are violations (and thus sin) for everyone.
  2. The Individual’s Conscience: Romans 14:23 says “that which is not of faith is sin” and James 4:17 says “The one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, that is sin to him.” These are issues of conscience and what may be sin for one is not a sin for another. Further, we are commanded (repeatedly) not to judge others in such matters.
One of the examples of an issue of conscience given in Romans 14 is keeping the Sabbath, which is commanded in the Decalogue. Yet, Paul states that one man honors one day, another honors another day and another man honors every day as the Lord’s day. Who are you to judge?
Another example is eating meat sacrificed to idols. In Numbers 25, the young women of Moab enticed the people to the feasts of Baal where they “ate and bowed down” to the Baals. Eating the meat sacrificed to the idols was part of the worship ceremony and constituted idolatry. A death-penalty offense. Paul said “Hey, it’s just a piece of wood or stone. What is that compared to Christ? Give thanks and eat.”
The only way an individual gets salvation is to become one of Christ’s slaves, which means they have a Master… a Lord. That slave is under His authority, not the authority of the Law. Because the Master paid the penalty for sin and was raised from the dead, His slaves are forgiven of their sins. His slaves were purchased for a price, which He paid with His blood. Which is why it is written

 

“if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.”

 

Look carefully at the words “Jesus as Lord” because the confession is that Jesus is your Lord. Your Master. Becoming a slave of Christ after being a slave to sin under the Law is a change of status and status is important. The status change to a slave is the essence of the New Covenant, a better covenant. And yet, the average and even above-average Christian today will look you in the eye and tell you that slavery is immoral and a sin.
That is the result of the individual’s paradigm refusing to allow them to accept the truth.

Modern Christians Do Not Have A Biblical Paradigm

How many have ever met a Christian who cast out a demon, much less seen it done? Not many, I’ll bet, but that was one of the things that Jesus and the Apostles did regularly. Do we no longer have demons around, or is it that we feel highly uncomfortable with even the idea of taking authority in the Name of the Lord and commanding a demon to be gone? The latter, I’m quite sure, based on numerous conversations over the years with Christians of all flavors.
What about healing people of sickness and disease? Raising people from the dead? Jesus and the apostles did so. How would the average Christian feel if a fellow-Christian encountered someone who was sick and said “In the name of the Lord Jesus, I command you be healed.” Again, based on experience, they’d be looking for a fast exit to get away from the lunatic who believed that “nutty” stuff that’s in the Bible.
The real question is whether God chose to heal that person or not. If He didn’t, it was not His will that the person be healed and the reason (from Scripture) would be one of the following:
  • The faith of the Christian was not be sufficient to exercise that power.
  • The faith of the sick person was not sufficient to be healed.
  • God wanted that the person continue in their illness, for His reasons.
  • For some other reason God chose not to heal them. He is Sovereign.
The average Christian would hear the words and see the failure and be convinced the individual was nuts… and look for a fast exit to get away from the nutty behavior. But even worse would be if God chose to heal the sick person. The average Christian who heard the words and saw it happen before their eyes? Mind blown, they’d run for cover, later to convince themselves that it didn’t happen. The memory would be suppressed.
What Christians have today is a paradigm that is shaped by the influence of the church’s opinions (frequently not from the Bible), the enlightenment that dethroned God and enthroned science, the theory of evolution (idolatry) and pervasive feminism (a degrading passion).

The Marriage Paradigm

How does marriage begin? Jesus knew and in Matthew 19, when the subject of the grounds for divorce was brought before Him, He quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage. His further statement that “For the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way” provides us with one of the keys to understanding Genesis 2:24…. because according to Christ, what is not said is just as important as what was said.
Yet, today Christians believe that marriage is begun with a procedure that isn’t in the Bible and they reject what the Bible actually says about it. As evidenced by this discussion. The reason is the early church was invaded by people like Jerome (a stoic) and Augustine (a Manichean) who had a hatred of sex and claimed that even within marriage sexual pleasure was a sin. These men became thought leaders within the church and their influence was incredible. Augustine’s opinions on sexual morality formed the foundation of the Church’s teaching on sexual morality for over 1000 years and Jerome was tapped to make the official translation of the Bible.
These men believed that sexual desire and sexual pleasure were the epitome of evil wickedness, even in marriage. They believed it to be sinful and it was only tolerated in marriage because of the command to be fruitful and multiply. Still, even within marriage they believed sex to be sinful unless specifically for the purpose of procreation. Obviously if sex can be a minor sin (a venal sin) in marriage, any sex outside marriage is a mortal sin. Because sex was so sinful (they claimed) marriage did not begin with sex, it began with consent (Roman law). And polygyny? Obviously the only reason a man would want multiple wives was greater sexual access and sexual variety… for pleasure. Polygyny was therefore forbidden as sinful and contrary to the will of God.
Fast forward to today. I have been studying Biblical Sexual Morality for years and when I told the truth about what the Bible actually says on Dalrock’s blog, I was attacked, ridiculed, mocked and accused of starting my own religion. Why? Because if they admit that (as the Bible says) marriage begins when the eligible virgin has sex, then over 80% of the “Christian” in the church (including the men on Dalrock’s blog) are living in adultery because they purported to marry another man’s wife. They were not the man to get her virginity and they were OK with that because the church told them “sex doesn’t make you married.”
That is a tough pill to swallow and they reacted with outrage.
Out of that orgy of Christian tolerance and rational debate, Dalrock stated that 1st Corinthians 7 definitively instructs Christians that “sex outside marriage” is a sin in order to support his Special Sauce ™ doctrine of marriage. Underlying this assertion is the idea is that God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and having sex and becoming one flesh does not make one married, there has to be something more. Dalrock claims there has to be some Special Sauce ™ that makes a couple married. He claims God didn’t tell us what Special Sauce ™ consists of, but he’s sure it’s a requirement and without it God will not recognize a marriage.

Virgins and Non-Virgins, A Status Difference

Interestingly, Dalrock pointed to 1st Corinthians 6:16 and (correctly) made the point that when prostitutes have sex and become one flesh with their customers, they are not married to them. He used this point to incorrectly claim that because that happens with prostitutes, it means sexual intercourse and becoming one flesh with a virgin doesn’t make her married. His claim is incorrect because according to his logic, Adam and Eve were not married. However, in making the claim he pointed to the fact that an eligible non-virgin can choose to have sex while not choosing to consent to marriage. He refused to recognize the difference in status between an eligible virgin and an eligible non-virgin in order to support his doctrine.
Some claim that if an eligible non-virgin chooses to have sex she is likewise choosing to consent to marriage. 1st Corinthians 6:16 proves this is not the case, otherwise all prostitution would be adultery because the prostitute would be married to the first customer and committing adultery with all the rest. Why didn’t Paul simply tell the men not to commit adultery with the prostitutes? Because they were not married and not committing adultery. The fact an eligible non-virgin can choose to have sex without choosing to be married is proved by prostitutes.
The doctrine of Special Sauce ™ and “no sex outside marriage” go hand in hand, you can’t have one without the other. If “sex outside marriage” is a sin, it’s something that can be confessed and forgiven. If there is no Biblical requirement for the Special Sauce ™ because God got it right in Genesis 2:24, then the eligible virgin is married with the act of sex and God makes the two one flesh. If that’s the case (and it is) then over 80% of the couples in the church are living in adultery, which means something needs to be done about that situation. There are solutions, but they require admitting that the doctrine that has been traditionally taught is a lie.
That is the issue. This is not about “Toad claims you can bang women outside marriage and not be in sin!” but rather “How does marriage begin?” The “sex outside marriage” argument is and always has been a giant shaming exercise designed to attack anyone who pointed to the Bible’s clear instruction on how marriage begins. This is an example:
Commenter Gary Eden questioned why the major point (the eligible virgin is married with sex) was being avoided and instead all manner of side issues were being pursued.

 

That is the problem with this whole comment thread. You are all starting from the belief/tradition that prostitution is wrong; rather than going to scripture to determine what the opinion of God is on the matter. More interested in shaming AT than dealing with the truth.
No, rather than seek out the truth, we’ll associate all these arguments with prostitution in order to shame them and mock them for trying to reason things out.

 

That is, in fact, exactly what was happening. Dalrock’s response was that I write nutty things. Then he laid down a shaming attack on Gary Eden for questioning the narrative. Rather than refute the point about prostitutes (he tried and failed), he brands the truth as “nutty” and starts shaming:

 

My question to you is: Did you not notice these nutty things and are defending them in error? Or did you notice the nutty things and like them, which is why you are defending them?

 

There you have it: The search for the truth is “nutty” according to churchians.

1st Corinthians 7 and “Sex Outside Marriage”

Based on what the text says, 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 provides no prohibition on “sex outside marriage”, nor does it prohibit polygyny. We begin with the text (NASB), translators additions are in italic:

 

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. 3 The husband must [a] fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husbanddoes; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wifedoes. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and [b] come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But this I say by way of concession, not of command. 7[c] Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to widows that it is good for them if they remain even as I. 9 But if they do not have self-control, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burnwith passion.
  • [a] 1 Corinthians 7:3Lit render
  • [b] 1 Corinthians 7:5Lit be
  • [c] 1 Corinthians 7:7One early ms reads For

 

In the previous post about the kerfuffle at Dalrocks blog, concerning the doctrine that 1st Corinthians 7 prohibited “sex outside marriage” I made my objection from the text, not based on what I want the text to say. What follows is a more complete explication than what was stated previously:
Paul specifically addressed sex outside marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1.
“It Is Good Not To Touch A Woman”
The word translated as “touch” is the Greek word haptomai, which means “I fasten to; I lay hold of, touch, know carnally“ and Paul is obviously using the “know carnally” meaning in this passage. How do we know? The context of the instruction is sex and marriage.
The word translated into English as “woman” is “gynaikos“, a form of “guné“. This word is translated as either “wife” or “woman”, although more often it is translated as “woman”. Given the context of the instruction he gave immediately afterward, he is obviously not saying it is good not to have sex with your wife.
If the woman is not a wife, then obviously carnal knowledge of such a woman is, by definition, sex outside marriage. That is irrefutable.
In the previous chapter Paul explicitly forbid men from having sex with prostitutes and said such activity was sexual immorality. In addition, adultery (the sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband) was forbidden in the Law. So was incest and male homosexuality. These acts are known as “sexual immorality” because they are specifically forbidden in the Law. However, “sex outside marriage” between a man and woman who are eligible to marry is not prohibited anywhere else in Scripture and when Paul addressed the issue directly, all he had to say on the subject was (paraphrasing)
“It’s good to not do that.”
Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he knew exactly what God’s Law said and didn’t say. He knew that marriage begins with sex and sometimes… sex “outside marriage” is just sex that doesn’t result in marriage and it’s not sin. Why is it not a sin? Because its not prohibited. It might be a sin for the individual because they are convicted by their conscience that it is wrong, but it is not a sin for everyone because it is not prohibited.
Dalrock claimed I was using Romans 4:15 and 5:13 (where there is no Law there is no violation; and where there is no violation there is no sin imputed) to obviate the requirement for obedience to New Testament instruction, specifically his doctrine that 1st Corinthians 7 creates a prohibition on “sex outside marriage”. That is a lie, I have always acknowledged that New Testament instruction is binding on Christians and I teach that. The conflict is he sees a prohibition in 1st Corinthians 7 that supports his false doctrine, but the passage in question does not contain any such prohibition.
Rather than prohibit sexual activity “outside marriage” as Dalrock claims, Paul actually said “it is good to not have sex a woman who is not your wife”. Meaning, “yes, that is permitted, but it’s good not to do that.”
The major takeway is that if sex outside marriage were a sin then there is no way Paul could have said “it’s good not to do that” because the direct implication and logical conclusion of that statement is such activity is permitted. And guess what: Such activity was always permitted, including sex with prostitutes (Paul only prohibited that in the previous chapter of the same letter). Which supports the point that marriage begins when the eligible virgin has sex. The only conclusion we can draw from this statement in 1st Corinthians 7:1 is that nothing has changed, but “It is good not to do that.”
Obviously, some are not convinced, so let’s compare this to the rest of Scripture.

What Does A New Testament Prohibition Look Like?

Looking at the previous chapter, we see something that was previously permitted being prohibited: sex with prostitutes. In 1st Corinthians 6:12-20 we have a pristine example of a New Testament rule being put in place that definitely prohibits something that the Law did not prohibit. The instruction is clear and explicit, leaving no doubt what is being prohibited and to whom it applies. Observe the prohibition:

 

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! 16 Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” 17 But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. 18 Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the [j] immoral man sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a[k] temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from[l] God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.

 

That is what a New Testament prohibition of something that was not forbidden by the Law looks like. Observe that it applies only to Christians and thus does not apply to those who are not one body with Christ, so it falls outside the prohibition on adding to or subtracting from the Law (Deut 4:2, 12:32). This is one of the “house rules” for slaves of Christ. Do we have any other examples of changes were made in the New Testament that prohibited actions that were permitted under the Law? As it happens, we do.
1st Corinthians 7:10-15 comes to mind.

 

10 But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not[d] leave her husband 11 (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not[e] divorce his wife.
12 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[f] divorce her. 13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not[g] send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through[h] her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 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[i] us[j] to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
  • 1 Corinthians 7:10Lit depart from
  • 1 Corinthians 7:11Or leave his wife
  • 1 Corinthians 7:12Or leave her
  • 1 Corinthians 7:13Or leave her husband
  • 1 Corinthians 7:14Lit the brother
  • 1 Corinthians 7:15One early ms reads you
  • 1 Corinthians 7:15Lit in

 

That prohibition is very specific as to what is being prohibited (divorce) as well as who it applies (Christians) to and how it applies. The right of a husband (under the Law) to divorce his Christian wife for adultery does not exist for Christian men and unlike the Law, there is no exception for adultery. Interestingly, we see Paul being very clear that the instruction is not from him in his Apostolic authority, but from Christ.
Another example of a New Testament prohibition is found in 2nd Corinthians 6:14-18.

 

14 Do not be[a] bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? 15 Or what harmony has Christ with[b] Belial, or[c] what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 16 Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said,
“I will dwell in them and walk among them;
And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
17 “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord.
“And do not touch what is unclean;
And I will welcome you.
18 “And I will be a father to you,
And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,”
Says the Lord Almighty.
  • 2 Corinthians 6:14Lit unequally yoked
  • 2 Corinthians 6:15Gr Beliar
  • 2 Corinthians 6:15Lit what part has a believer with an unbeliever

 

Again, another clear and specific prohibition that leaves no doubt who it applies to (Christians only), what is being prohibited (marriage to unbelievers) and why.
Notice also that Paul wrote each of these prohibitions.
Do we see anything in 1st Corinthians 7:1-9 that even approaches a clearly stated prohibition of something that has previously been permitted? No, just the opposite. What we see is Paul saying “It is good not to have sex with a woman who is not your wife.” A few verses later Paul said to the unmarried and widows “is good for them if they remain even as I (unmarried)” Is that a prohibition of marriage? Of course not. Neither was there a prohibition of “sex outside marriage” in verse one.

Digging A Bit Deeper

Paul addressed “outside of marriage” by saying “It is good not to have sex with a woman who is not your wife.” But, what kind of woman is he talking about and what kind of sex is he talking about?
  1. If the man and woman are not eligible to marry because the woman is already married, such as the man and woman Paul used as an example in Chapter 5 (he had his father’s wife), then obviously their union is the sin of adultery. Paul is not talking about that sort of woman because sex with her is forbidden.
  2. Paul is certainly not talking about sex with prostitutes because he forbid doing that in the previous chapter.
  3. If the woman is a virgin, they are married with that act and it is marriage sex, not “sex outside marriage”. If the woman is not a virgin, is eligible to marry and she consents to marry, they are married with that act and it is marriage sex, not “sex outside marriage”. Paul could be talking about this sort of sexual relationship because he thought it better if Christians didn’t marry in order that they might focus on the Lord. However, I doubt it.
  4. If the woman is not a virgin and eligible to marry, but the sex is more of a FWB relationship because neither one of them really want to get married, they are not in sin for having sex and the sex does not result in marriage because the woman did not consent to marry. I believe it is more likely Paul is talking about this situation when he said “It is good not to do that.”
Understand that we DO NOT KNOW what matters the people of Corinth wrote to Paul about, but what we do know is it concerned them enough that they wrote to him about it. His response was “It is good not to have sex with a woman who is not your wife.”
If Paul were prohibiting such activity, would he have made the statement “It is good not to do that” or would he have made an explicit, definite prohibition that specified who it applied to and why?
When we compare what he said in verse one to the three examples of New Testament prohibitions for Christians that took away their rights under the Law, the difference is obvious. Paul was not forbidding “sex outside of marriage” in any way, he simply said “It is good not to do that.” In observing that there are three prohibitions placed on Christians that took away their rights under the Law, we should understand that IF the Lord had instructed Paul to forbid “sex outside marriage” he would have done so. Yet, he did not.
Logically, the reason is obvious: Marriage begins with sex because a man marries a woman with the act of sex. To forbid “sex outside marriage” is to forbid marriage.
Further objections will be dealt with in the next post.

Dishonest Dalrock Thinks He Won

Artisanal Toad57 Comments

Dalrock’s True Color: Feminist Pink

Evidently this blog has made enough of an impact that Dalrock decided he had to do something about it. Or perhaps he just wanted a massive food fight on his blog. For whatever reason, Dalrock decided to do a takedown of what I write about, using a strawman argument he thought he could knock down.
It was not a debate or even a discussion. Dalrock already knew he couldn’t win the fight legitimately because the Bible is not on his side. So, he decided start the fight on his terms and used the theme of “it sounds nutty” in order to use shaming rhetoric, hand waving and the power of his bully pulpit. It’s true. To feminists, what the Bible says is nutty because feminism is opposed to God.
The question underlying all of it is simple:

 

Is the eligible virgin married when she has sex, even if she does not know that act makes her married?

 

The answer rests on the question of whether the virgin’s consent is required in order for her to be married.

 

Does the father have the authority to grant or withhold consent for his virgin daughter?

 

What does the Bible say? If the father can grant consent for her, then obviously she does not have agency to grant or withhold consent to marry. It must be understood that Dalrock is a feminist in practice, if not in belief, so he could not allow that question to be answered.
If Dalrock was correct in his doctrine, he should have been able to refute me easily. The problem is he isn’t correct and he can’t refute what the Bible clearly says by using the Bible. Dalrock’s argument was rhetorical, designed to sway the emotions and for the most part all he did was intentionally lie and engage in ad hominem. Commenter Gary Eden objected to all the ad hominem and the refusal to address what the Bible says. In this comment Dalrock responded and explained what he was really doing- attack me personally:

 

he still looks nutty, because he is writing nutty things.

 

In other words, Dalrock chose to take advantage of the ignorance and cultural conditioning of all his Dalrock bros and encourage the personal attacks rather than allow a rational debate to take place. In the end the “debate” touched the third rail of feminism (does the virgin have agency) and it had to end.

SJW = Churchian

Churchians are feminist SJW’s who dress their feminism up and hide behind the Bible. Or, they claim they do. As Vox Day explained in “SJW’s Always Lie”:
  1. Churchian’s Always Lie: Dalrock intentionally lied, over and over again.
  2. Churchian’s Always Double Down: When refuted, Dalrock doubled down.
  3. Churchian’s Always Project: Dalrock claimed I was doing what he actually did.
Dalrock’s action follows the classic SJW attack sequence that Vox explained in his book:
  1. Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
  2. Point and Shriek.
  3. Isolate and Swarm.
  4. Reject and Transform.
  5. Press for Surrender.
  6. Appeal to Amenable Authority.
  7. Show Trial.
  8. Victory Parade.
My comments over the years and the complete inability of anyone to refute my argument has clearly been a violation of the narrative. Obviously I am not going to apologize or surrender and there isn’t any Amenable Authority to appeal to. Dalrock knows this. He created a post that combined point and shriek with isolate and swarm. He turned the multiple posts into a show trial.
But, the show trial didn’t turn out to be quite what he thought it would be.
Over 90% of the “argument” was lying about what I claim and ad hominem attacks, with very little attempt support their doctrine from Scripture. The centerpiece of Dalrocks theological argument was the claim that 1st Corinthians 7 is instruction that sex is only to take place within marriage and thus all sex “outside marriage” is a sin. But he can’t describe how marriage actually begins…
Dalrock claims that God didn’t provide us with a wedding ceremony. Then he doubled down and claimed that having sex and becoming one flesh doesn’t make a virgin married… because whores have sex and become one flesh with their customers and it doesn’t make them married.
According to that argument, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and Adam and Eve were not married because they didn’t have the Dalrock Special Sauce ™, or Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore. For some reason Dalrock didn’t respond to that.

The Importance of Dalrock’s 1st Cor. 7 Argument

What Paul actually said in 1st Corinthians 7 is simple: Because of the ubiquitous temptations of sexual immorality, each wife is to have her own husband (not someone else’s husband- sexual immorality) and each husband is to have his own wife (not someone else’s wife- sexual immorality). They are to have sex whenever either of them wants sex and neither can say no to the other, except for those times set aside, by mutual agreement, for fasting and prayer. When the time set aside for fasting and prayer is over they are to come together again and have sex in order that they might not be tempted by the sexual immorality around them.
The text Dalrock refers to is instruction to the already married people concerning sex and it does not have anything to do with the creation of marriage. The problem with the Dalrock brigade is they skip over the first part of the instruction in their rush to judgment and miss the fact that Paul specifically addressed sex outside marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1.

“It Is Good Not To Touch A Woman”

  • The word translated as “touch” is the Greek word haptomai, which means “I fasten to; I lay hold of, touch, know carnally“ and Paul is obviously using the “know carnally” meaning in this passage.
  • The word translated into English as “woman” is “gynaikos“, a form of “guné“. Given the context of the instruction he gave immediately afterward, he is obviously not saying it is good not to have sex with your wife.
  • If the woman is not a wife, then obviously carnal knowledge of such a woman is, by definition, sex outside marriage.
In the previous chapter Paul forbid men from having sex with prostitutes. Adultery, which is the sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, was forbidden in the Law. So was incest and male homosexuality. These acts are known as “sexual immorality” because they are specifically forbidden. However, “sex outside marriage” is not prohibited and when Paul addressed the issue directly, all he had to say on the subject was (paraphrasing)
“It’s good to not do that.”
Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he knew exactly what God’s Law said and didn’t say. He knew that marriage begins with sex and sometimes… sex “outside marriage” is just sex that doesn’t result in marriage and it’s not sin.
Rather than prohibit sexual activity “outside marriage” as Dalrock claims, Paul actually said “it is good to not have sex a woman who is not your wife”. Meaning, “yes, that is permitted, but it’s good not to do that.”
As with his erroneous interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Dalrock is claiming that 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 says something that it clearly does not say and can’t see that it actually says the opposite of what he claims.

The Show Trial Had To End

After two separate threads totaling more than 1400 comments, with several commenters asking why Toad wasn’t being refuted, it had to end. In order to get a violation of his blog rules, Dalrock asked this question:

 

If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?

 

Actually, he was intentionally not following my logic and he is incorrect, but it’s just one more example of Dalrock’s dishonesty. The subject is the rape of the non-betrothed virgin that creates her marriage to the man who raped her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), but the issue is the agency of the virgin and whether her consent is required in order for her to be married. Obviously the virgin has no agency and her consent is not required.
What Dalrock did was ask a forked question. The classic example of a forked question is “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question assumes wife-beating is or has been occurring. Dalrock’s question assumes that a rape cannot create a marriage, the community had to do so as part of the punishment for raping her. It was important for Dalrock to establish that some Special Sauce ™ makes a virgin married, not just the sex and becoming one flesh as described in Genesis 2:24 that makes a virgin married.
Thus, according to Dalrock’s Special Sauce ™ doctrinal view of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, marriage is a punishment and the rape victim is punished by being forced to marry her rapist. This is the level of ridiculousness they are forced to stoop to in order to justify their doctrines.
It was not clear whether Dalrock was putting on his pink vagina hat or not, so I asked for clarification before answering by changing the subject within the same issue of consent.

 

I think it safe to say that we should be able to agree that according to Scripture, the father has the right to give his daughter to the man *he* chooses for her regardless of her feelings about it. If you have an objection please let me know.
So, under that condition, is the man who gets her from her father in sin when he marries her? Just so we’re clear, he marries her with the act of penetrative sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.
Is that man in sin for marrying his wife?

 

Unlike the virgin who was raped into marriage, the subject of my question is a wife according to Dalrock’s doctrine, because she had the Special Sauce ™ in the form of her father giving her to her husband in a “public status” ceremony in front of witnesses. Dalrock claims marriage is a public status and therefore it requires some sort of Special Sauce ™ ceremony dictated by the particular culture. Obviously this girl had that because that particular culture lived under God’s Law and they said she was his wife.
So, is the husband in sin if he takes her by force? Lack of consent is the sine qua non of rape, so is her husband raping her? The question is whether her father has the authority to consent for her. If he does, it cannot be rape and more importantly it proves she does not have agency.
Is the virgin’s consent required in order for the sex to make her married?
According to the Bible, the answer is clearly no. Deut. 22:28-29 tells us that the virgin can be raped into marriage, which means her consent is not required. Therefore the idea that a virgin does not know that giving her virginity to some hawt boy will result in her being married is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether she knows or not, whether she consents or not, because her consent is not required.
Does a father have the authority to give his daughter in marriage to the man he chooses, against her will and over her objections? According to the Bible, the answer is clearly yes. Exodus 21:7-11 tells us that a father can sell his daughter into slavery to be a man’s concubine. Leviticus 19:29 limits that authority, with the prohibition on a father profaning his daughter by making her a prostitute.
Notice what Dalrock said in answer to the question:

 

All you’ve done is asked me the very question I asked you. But since you asked, yes, rape is a sin, and that would include raping a virgin.

 

Is Dalrock stupid? No, not at all. He knows very well that consent is the essential element in the crime of rape, he knows exactly what the Bible says and he carefully did not answer the question. He did not say that the man in question was raping his wife, he simply said that rape is a sin. I know that and he knows I know that. Dalrock gave the standard feminist answer about rape always being a sin and in so doing covered his ass, but he had reached the point he could not allow it to continue. Because feminism.
Dalrock banned me before I could respond and 1) call him out for not actually answering the question and 2) point to the real issue. Of course, I’d have also called him out for lying, once again, but that’s beside the point.
This page has the story of the big argument, condensed, with commentary. The post history is archived here and here.
Obviously it’s Dalrock’s blog and he has every right to ban anyone he wants. I’m not complaining, because what he did was establish a few facts once and for all:
  1. Dalrock and all his churchian bros together could not refute (on any point) the teaching of Scripture that I’ve been writing about for years.
  2. In two threads with a total of over 1400 comments, several points emerged.
☠ The fact Dalrock could not argue without resorting to lying and ad hominem attacks proves he cannot debate the issue.
☠ The fact that he got his ass handed to him every time he put forth any kind of Scriptural argument to refute me proves he is wrong and he knows it.
☠ The fact he banned me proves he couldn’t tolerate publicly losing the argument.
☠ Dalrock is a dishonest, feminist churchian who does not like or agree with what the Bible actually says and does not say.
There were several novel points that got raised during the course of the argument that I’ll address in later posts, notably the position of Evan P Turner that slaves cannot be wives and his logical deductions resulting from that position.

Addendum:

For years, all Dalrock has done is keep up a steady drumbeat of posts that essentially boil down to one thing: men are losing the cultural war against feminism. For years, Dalrock has offered no solutions to help men and churches deal with the problem of feminism. The Dalrock message is clear: Men are losing and there is no hope.
The truth is that the early church threw out the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality and replaced it with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. These teachings are encapsulated by the following:
  • Sex is evil, don’t do it. However, because of the requirement of “be fruitful and multiply” sex is permitted within marriage, but only for the purposes of procreation. Obviously sex “outside of marriage” is forbidden. (pagan belief/stoic philosophy).
  • Marriage is established by consent, not sex (Roman law)
  • Marriage must be monogamous, polygyny is not permitted (Roman Law)
  • Men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality (pagan belief)
This rejection of the Bible has resulted in two major problems. The first is the epidemic of adultery within the church. Solutions exist to solve this problem but the first step is to refute the lies and teach the truth.
The second problem impacts not just the church but the culture as well. The early church’s teaching that men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality is to say that men and women are equal. Thus, the church is the creator of the moral foundation of feminism and feminism cannot be defeated within the church until that pernicious doctrine is rejected by the church.
In order to reject the the adultery within the church and the moral foundation of feminism, the church must teach and preach the standards of sexual morality that are contained within the Bible, not the lies they have been preaching and teaching for 1500 years. Men must accept the responsibility of the role they were given, by God and women must accept the role they were given, by God.
Men and women are not equal and they are not held to the same standards.