Author: Artisanal Toad

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

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

Fornication, Premarital Sex and the Easter Bunny

Artisanal Toad12 Comments

That’s Fornication!

I keep having people tell me about this thing called fornication and how bad it is. So I asked myself, what does the word “fornication” really mean? According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word “fornicate” means”

“(Of two people not married to each other) have sexual intercourse.”

In the Bible the word “fornication” is typically used to translate the Greek word “porneia” into English. The best translation for “porneia” is “sexual immorality” because the word describes things that are forbidden by the Law.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t get us much closer to what the word means and what it actually means and what people think it means are two very different things. In fact, the word is a misnomer. In case you were wondering, the dictionary defines the word “misnomer” as:

mis·no·mer

noun
noun: misnomer; plural noun: misnomers
  1. a wrong or inaccurate name or designation.
    ““king crab” is a misnomer—these creatures are not crustaceans at all”
    synonyms: inaccurate name/label/designation, wrong name/label/designation, inappropriate name/label/designation

    “scientists say “killer whale” is a misnomer for what is one of the gentlest marine creatures known to man”
    • a wrong or inaccurate use of a name or term.
      “to call this “neighborhood policing” would be a misnomer”
What is wrong with the word fornication?
This is best understood by learning how this word came to be, which requires a bit of church history. The short version is the major thought leaders of the early church, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory, were all a bunch of perverts. They hated sex and especially the idea of sexual pleasure, which they considered the most foul and wicked of all activities. Even within marriage, sex could be considered a sin (although a venial one), so outside marriage sex must be a mortal sin.
They hated sex so much they threw out the Bible’s instruction and standards on marriage and replaced them with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. While the Bible says that sex is the act that creates a marriage, the perverts in the early church decided that marriage was by consent only and sex had nothing to do with it. That was the beginning.
Later, the church took control of marriage for political purposes and they required that any marriage be made under the auspices of the church, in public, with an exchange of vows which required public commitment by both parties. This too was in absolute violation of the Bible’s instruction but they didn’t care, they were the church and they could do whatever they wanted to. If you didn’t like it they’d declare you a heretic and kill you.
This created a problem because there is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible that forbids what is now known as “premarital sex”. The reason is simple. When a virgin has sex for the first time, that is her marriage ceremony and with that act she’s married. Whether she knows it or not. If she has sex with any other man, that’s the crime of adultery. The reason there is no Biblical prohibition on “premarital sex” is because sex is how marriage begins. Sure, you can have a wedding celebration and exchange vows, but the marriage occurs when the couple has sex.
The church knew this and they have always known this, but they are sneaky and quite devious. They could not admit that sex makes one married so there was no way they could call sex with a virgin marriage or call sex with the town bicycle adultery. They had to have something else and they settled on the Biblical prohibition in the New Testament that forbid Christian men from having sex with prostitutes.
That is where the word fornication comes from and the leaders of the church claim that any sex outside of marriage is fornication and it’s a sin.
Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are specific in telling us that where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed. In other words, there has to be a rule that can be broken before you get a violation, and lacking a violation of some prohibition, there is no sin imputed. With that in mind, let’s see if the church got it right.

Examining The Evidence

Is it a sin if two people who are not married to each other get together and have sex? In some cases, yes. The crime of adultery is a man having sex with another man’s wife. The crime of incest is two close relatives having sex together. The crime of sodomy is two men having sex. Each of those, however, is a specific sin, the sins of adultery, incest and sodomy and in each case the situation is one in which the two people having sex cannot marry each other. That’s important.
Is it possible two people who are not married to each other could get together and have sex without being in sin? Again, in some cases, yes. The reason is there is no prohibition anywhere in the Law that says a man cannot have sex with any woman who is eligible to marry him. If a man (whether married or not) has sex with a virgin, he has consummated his marriage to her and that is not a sin. If a man has sex with a widow, a legitimately divorced woman (a woman who was divorced because of her immorality) or any other woman who is unmarried but not a virgin, it is not a sin because there is no prohibition on such activity.
The simple rule is if the man and woman could legitimately be married to each other, having sex is not a sin and it doesn’t matter if the man is already married or not because a man can have more than one wife. Christians hate, hate, hate this.
The reason it’s not a sin is because the way God designed things, the man (any man) has the authority to initiate marriage to any woman he is eligible to marry at any time. However, this word “fornication” was part of a restructuring of the language and it reflects what the church taught about sex and marriage, not what the Bible teaches. The reason is the church usurped the man’s authority to initiate marriage and claimed there had to be a ceremony in order for there to be a marriage. That meant that sex prior to the Easter Bunny definition of marriage had to be classified as a sin called “premarital sex.”
The Law did not contain any prohibition, anywhere, on a man having sex with a woman eligible to marry, regardless of whether he was single or married, but I recently had a fellow arguing with me on this subject. He claims “premarital sex” is a sin and he used Deuteronomy 22:21 as the centerpiece of his argument. The problem there is the woman who was sentenced to death in that passage was a betrothed woman who was found to NOT be a virgin on her wedding night.
The thing is, the very next passage (verses 22-23) describes a man who has sex with a betrothed virgin getting put to death because “he violated his neighbors wife.” That’s one way to say adultery, but the fact is that a betrothed virgin was legally married.
To complicate matters, the English translation of verse 21 says the woman is to be put to death because she committed a great folly and “played the harlot” in her father’s house. I’ll skip over the confusion the word “harlot” creates for now (it convinces people that “premarital sex” is some kind of sin) but I’ll cover it later. The word translated as “played the harlot” in Deuteronomy 22:21 is the specific term “liz-nō-wṯ” and there are only 5 occurrences of this word, which is a form of our old friend “zanah.” The question is what “liz-nō-wṯ” actually means, so we first look at the other usages of the term and the five times “liz-nō-wṯ” is used are:
1) Leviticus 20:5 (Defined in the text as Molech worship)
2) Leviticus 20:6 (Defined in the text as using mediums and spiritists)
3) Leviticus 21:9 (Contextually implied as being sexual idolatry)
4) Numbers 25:1 (Defined in the text as Baal worship)
5) Deuteronomy 22:21 (A woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night)
So the question is, why, when the facts support a conclusion of adultery, did Moses use the term “liz-nō-wṯ” which is defined in the other uses as idolatry? Is it possible that in her acts of adultery the woman is signifying her rejection of God, His Law and precepts of purity? This follows the idea that idolatry is spiritual adultery in the same way that adultery is physical idolatry. Idolatry is giving something that belongs only to God to someone or something else and adultery is a wife giving to some other man something that belongs only to her husband. In both cases there is an obligation that is being violated.
There are actually two ways in which the woman in verse 21 could be guilty of adultery, one of which is if she gave her virginity to another man after she was betrothed (she committed adultery against her betrothed) and the other if she gave her virginity to a man prior to becoming betrothed. If the latter case, not only did she commit adultery when she had sex with the man she purported to marry, she caused him to commit adultery because she was already a married woman.
Keep in mind that proving adultery is extremely difficult because it requires two witnesses and not only that but a finding of adultery would require a determination be made as to who her husband really was. If a woman is to be put to death for adultery it is in the interest of justice to put the man guilty of adultery to death as well, which might lead to a situation in which the man who innocently married her would be found guilty of adultery and be subject to the death penalty.
But, wait! Is there truly a need to push the adultery issue when this is such a can of worms? She is also technically guilty of idolatry in giving to someone else that which rightfully belonged only to the man she had agreed to marry (idolatry) and that is also a death penalty offense.
Perhaps that’s the reason why Moses used the term “liz-nō-wṯ” to describe her crime, a term that is specifically defined as idolatry. The problem with calling this adultery is there must be a victim and the question is, who is the victim and who is the other guilty party? Will the woman tell the truth and even if she did, could she be believed? Only God knows the truth of the matter, so the term “liz-nō-wṯ” does an admirable job of describing the situation in which regardless of who she committed adultery against or with, what she did was give herself to someone other than he to whom she belonged and thus in the context of idolatry she was in violation of a death penalty offense without the messy problem of proving who she was actually married to… one in which the completely innocent victim of her adultery might have to pay for her crime with his life.
It seems to me the clear instruction for judges in this matter is with the facts as presented, this is a situation in which it does no good to try to dig down to the bottom of things. Legally married, she’s found not to be a virgin, so should the case be judged as adultery (in which there is the possibility of an innocent man being put to death) when a suitable alternative exists? Where would the two witnesses come from and how could adultery be proven otherwise? As presented, there is only one witness against her (the cloth) that testifies to her guilt so she cannot be convicted on the charge of adultery unless there is another witness. On the other hand, as to the charge of idolatry we have two witnesses, the cloth and the offended husband who did not receive what was owed to him and knows it because he was there. Obviously, since both crimes are death-penalty offenses, it is better to protect the innocent than go on a witch-hunt for the guilty and that’s what Moses appears to have decided, which is probably why he characterized her crime as “liz-nō-wṯ” which is translated into English as “playing the harlot” but defined in the text as idolatry.
What modern Christians like to see in this text is “harlotry” and “fornication” but the text absolutely does not support this at all. What the text supports is a physical act of adultery with circumstances that allowed her to be convicted of idolatry without allowing a witch-hunt that may very well have seen an innocent man put to death. That is a very real possibility because if an unmarried woman is screwing around in her youth while living in her father’s house, what is the worst thing that can happen to her? Marriage. On the other hand, once she’s betrothed, what happens if she’s caught screwing around? The penalty is execution as an adulteress (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). Simple logic says that once she’s betrothed the woman will probably be very careful not to step out of line. She’s had her fun, got away with it and now she’s set to latch onto her beta provider.
In this case of the woman found not to be a virgin on her wedding night, she probably lost her virginity prior to her betrothal and that means her betrothal was a sham (she was already married) and the man she purported to marry committed adultery in the process of discovering she was already married (not a virgin) which makes him guilty of adultery through no fault of his own.
Folks, what we DO NOT see here is an example of premarital sex. We see a case of adultery that would be a nightmare to prosecute and the witch-hunt necessary to discover the truth in this matter (her real husband has nothing to lose- he actually did nothing wrong in this episode) would likely get an innocent man killed so instead of adultery she was convicted on the available evidence on a charge of idolatry and sentenced to death.
While Deuteronomy 22:21 is not describing premarital sex, the position of the church with respect to premarital sex is real. It took a lot of study, but it’s found among ancient holy writings in the famous story about the ceremony of the Easter Bunny with his basked of colored eggs. This is the instruction where the early church got the requirement for a marriage ceremony and the story explains why people aren’t supposed to play with the eggs (especially the blue ones!) before the ceremony. Seriously. That sticky white stuff from the eggs just goes everywhere. I was having a rough time finding the source for this doctrine on premarital sex but the guy with a funny hat told me all about it and everybody tells me it’s not possible for him to make mistakes when it comes to this stuff(1) so I guess it must be true. After all, it seems like everybody in the church believes it.
  1. The Roman Catholic Church claims the Pope is infallible in all matters of faith and doctrine for the church. I didn’t say it came from the Bible.

Solutions and Silver Linings to Dark Clouds

Artisanal Toad48 Comments
This is a follow-up to the last post, in which I outlined what I think is the biggest problem the church faces today. The first aspect of the problem that needs to be recognized is it happened because God did it and it’s a punishment.
Before anybody thinks Toad has gone off his rocker, Romans 1:18-32 describes the wrath of God being poured out on a world in which people do not acknowledge, honor or worship Him. That wrath is poured out in three distinct phases. First, God gave them over to impurity that they might be dishonored in their bodies. The second time God gave them over to depraved passions. The third time God gave them over to a depraved mind.
Given the specific issues involved (especially Romans 1:26, the women giving up the “natural function”) it is apparent to me that passage is a prophesy which has already come to pass for Western Civilization. It started in the period of the 1960’s with the replacement of absolute (Biblical) morality with moral relativism. There was an explosion of infidelity, promiscuity, divorce and adultery as people rejected God’s standards and replaced them with their own. A generation later in the 1980’s we saw the depraved passion of feminism explode into the public consciousness as women gave up the natural function of women and began to truly hate men. Likewise, the men gave up the natural function and homosexuality experienced explosive growth. They received the due penalty in their own bodies with the devastation of AIDS. A generation later with the 2000’s we see the cycle complete with evidence of depraved minds surrounding us.
I have spent the past few years studying Biblical family, marriage and sex; and the results of that study have been surprising. Or, perhaps they should not have been surprising… because it’s obvious the average church-goer cares far more about what others think about them than what God thinks about them. the more I dug into this, the worse it got. Finally, it got to the point that I started all over from the beginning. I had previously thought the major issue was divorce and remarriage in the church, but I was thinking of “official” marriage and divorce.
As discussed in the last post, when we start with the concept of marriage and take it from there, things get interesting. There are multiple passages in Scripture that deal with marriage, but the critical passage is Exodus 22:16-17 because that passage clearly states when a man and a virgin have sex they are married unless the father refuses to allow it. Since there isn’t any dowry or bride-price for virgins any longer, the fact is, sex with a virgin is the act of marrying her.
However, one thing we do not want to do is create a doctrine based on a shaky foundation, so we must rigorously test this. The on-point passages are Deuteronomy 22:13-21; 28-29; Numbers 30:2-5 and Judges 21. Comparing Exodus 22:16-17 with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and contrasting those passages with the punishment of the virgin in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, it becomes evident there is no other way to take Exodus 22:16-17 except as a definitive statement that “taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her.”
This creates a huge dilemma for a great many people. I strongly suspect the reason we have such a strong tradition of marriage ceremonies is directly related to this. We started off with people who understood clearly that the act of taking a woman’s virginity was to marry her and if her father refused he was annulling the marriage, not preventing it (yes, splitting semantic hairs, but necessary). The act of annulling the marriage was to rescind the woman’s agreement and invalidate the marriage after the fact, not to prevent it, and the father had 24 hours (“on the day”) to annul her agreement.
However, we notice that in verse 16, this Law specifically applies to “between a man and his wife; and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father’s house.” The father does not have the right to annul the marriage of a woman who gave her virginity to a man while no longer in her youth, living in her father’s house.
Again, this creates a huge dilemma for many people and there is tremendous pressure for people to dismiss this as simply too preposterous to consider. However, we have two examples of people who were in this situation and a record of what happened. The first is found in 2nd Kings 22-23. Josiah was 26 years old, having ascended to the throne of Judah at the age of 8. He was the son of Amon, an evil king, and the grandson of Manasseh, a truly evil king, but “he did right in the sight of the Lord and walked in all the way of his father David, nor did he turn aside to the right or to the left.”
In the 18th year of his reign a copy of the book of the Law (which had been lost) was discovered during a renovation of the Temple. The book was taken to the king and read in his presence. When he heard the words of the book, Josiah tore his clothes and sent men to inquire of the prophets, saying “great is the wrath of the Lord that burns against us, because our fathers have not listened to the words of this book, to do according to all that is written concerning us.”
They went to Huldah the prophetess, who said:
“Thus says the Lord, Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place and it shall not be quenched.”
“But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord thus shall you say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel, regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you, declares the Lord. Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you shall be gathered to your grave in peace, neither shall your eyes see all the evil which i will bring on this place.”
Read the entire story, both chapter 22 and 23, but pay particular attention to that passage because it is critical. First, God plainly tells the King that judgment is coming because His wrath has been kindled and it will not be quenched. Second, because Josiah’s heart was in the right place, he will be spared (and his people with him) from seeing the day of the Lord’s vengeance on His own people.
How is this any different from out situation today? The wrath of God is being poured out but salvation in Christ awaits all who call upon the Name of the Lord, confess their sin and repent of their wicked ways. Churches talk a lot about calling upon the Name of the Lord and confessing sin, but there seems to be a strange silence when it comes to repentance.
Look at what Josiah did. First, he gathered the people and they had the book of the Law read to them. Then, the King stood by the pillar and made a covenant before the Lord (a vow) to walk after the Lord and keep Hi commandments and His testimonie and His statutes with all his heart and all his soul and carry out the words of this covenant that were written in this book. And all the people entered into the covenant. After that, King Josiah spent the rest of his life striving with all his might to enforce the book of the Law in his kingdom. He tore down the high places, he broke the altars of Baal, he forbid the rituals and re-instituted the passover and new moons feasts. In the end he received the testimony of the Lord that he was the greatest king, for none before him had served the Lord with all their heart, all their soul and all their might and none like him came after.
Josiah did not just confess his sin, he repented. He did all he could to ensure that God was honored and God’s Law was observed, that the people would keep the commandments of the Lord.
Now, we turn to the book of Ezra, and the story of the mixed marriages in chapters 9 and 10. A group of Hebrews under the leadership of Ezra journeyed back to Jerusalem from Babylon with the blessing of King Artaxerxes, but after arriving Ezra was informed that some of the men had violated the commandment not to take foreign wives. After calling all the people together (like Josiah) an agreement was made amongst the people to repent of their transgressions and they put away their foreign wives, some of whom had born them children. In total, 113 men had their names listed forever in Scripture, by name, for the sin of marrying foreign wives and they fulfilled their oath and put them and they children they had by them away.
Sounds pretty rough, doesn’t it? Let’s keep a few things in mind from what we’ve seen. The attitude of the person who hears the command of the Lord, confesses their sin and repents is something God honors.
The idea that taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her is preposterous to many today because the tradition states “just because you have sex doesn’t mean you’re married.” In a way, that’s true, because in the case of a non-virgin sex does not create marriage, it usually creates a case of adultery. In the case of a virgin, her father (and only her father) has the right to say that and if he says it when he first hears of it then he is annulling the marriage.
Just as with the traditions of the people in the time of King Josiah, when the people bowed down and worshiped foreign gods, the traditions today concerning marriage and sex are very powerful and I am certainly no king Josiah. So, it seems to me that with the Law clear and the examples we have of both Josiah and Ezra, if the person who has finally heard and understood the command of the Lord humbles themselves, confesses their sin and repents of their sin, God will judge righteously.
First, ascertain the situation and status.
Perhaps some have heard the old saying “mama’s baby, daddy’s maybe.” The fact is, only the woman truly knows who she gave her virginity to if she willingly did it, and I proceed from the standpoint of the woman.
marriage flow chart2
So, if you’re married, it gets a little complex, because that drags a bunch of other stuff into this, specifically Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-15, but I neglected to mention one thing on that chart. The question of whether your father annulled the marriage really devolves to whether your father actually found out about the marriage. Did he? If you did it “in your youth living in your father’s house” and maybe he was one of those “don’t ask – don’t tell” guys, go to your father, confess what you did, explain why it’s important and ask him to pray and tell God that he is refusing your marriage to the guy you gave your virginity to.
Keep in mind, that you maybe ought to have him read all of Numbers 30, because there *is* that part in there that says the guilt will be on his head if he does it. I just can’t see the guy you married getting upset about it when he doesn’t know he married you.
But, maybe that won’t work, so let’s graph this out:
marriage flow chart
If the guy you married isn’t a Christian, contact him, tell him you joined a cult that believes you’re married, and ask him for a certificate of divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4). All he has to do is write that he’s divorcing you for adultery and sign it. You’re divorced and you don’t ever have to show it to anybody. Just because he’s not a Christian doesn’t make him the non-believer who left you. You may very well have dumped him. Play it by the book and get a certificate of divorce. If necessary, offer to end it with a bang: it’s not like it’s a sin because until he signs that paper he’s your husband.
If he won’t do that, ask him when you should move in with the kids. When he says he isn’t interested, you’re free (1st Corinthians 7:15). If he does want you back, you have to consider that you have a choice. 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 says that since you’ve already “left” him, you are to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to him. That’s the choice.
Now, here’s where a bit of investigation might help. If he’s married, you don’t want to tell him that he’s got the right to have more than one wife. That might interest him. If he’s been divorce raped and hates his ex, find out how to act just like his ex. That should fix the problem. Being stupid got you into this mess but that doesn’t mean you have to continue with that plan… and ultimately it’s his decision, so why not give him some incentive to decide the way you want him to?
If the guy claims to be a Christian, 1st John 2:2-6 applies. If he won’t be reconciled to you, present your case to the elders of your church and ask for their judgment. They won’t want to but since they won’t agree with any of this from a doctrinal standpoint and they don’t have to put anything in writing, they’ll probably go along. Cry. That always helps. Since he isn’t being obedient to the Word (1st Peter 3:7- “husbands live with your wives”) ask for a judgment of excommunication. They can excommunicate him, that makes him the unbeliever who will not consent to live with you and you’re free. (“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever is loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven”)
If the guy claims to be a Christian but is married to another woman, you’ll probably get the same answer, but this time when you present it to your elders point out that there is nothing to prevent a man from having more than one wife and he obviously has 2 wives as far as God is concerned but he isn’t treating you equally (see Exodus 21:10) by providing equal food, clothing, shelter and conjugal rights. Again, ask for a judgment of excommunication.
Trust me on this, the Toad has enormous experience with the reactions of church-folk when they’re confronted with some of the stuff Scripture allows but happens to fall outside their comfort zone. If the guy is a serious conservative Christian, find a friend to help you. Your ideal friend will be dressed like a slut, tatted up with a skrillex haircut, piercings and have no hesitation about a bit of groping and swapping spit with you in front of the guy. Tell him it’s OK, she’s your girlfriend and the two of you are *really* close but you’re the only one that likes guys. She hates them. If necessary, have said girlfriend snort a line in front of him and offer him some.
If you really want to wiggle out of this, all you have to do is put him in a state of mind in which he absolutely does not want to have anything to do with you. In other words, get in touch with your inner slut, your inner bitch and maybe get in touch with your kinkiest girlfriend. If you don’t have any of those, go find a dyke bar and tell a few of the the girls there your story about your need to make a seriously bad impression on a fundie Christian guy. If they’re anything like the ones I know they’d get a kick out of helping out with something like that and probably wouldn’t even hit on you (much).
But, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if churches taught what the Bible actually says about marriage? Saying giving your virginity to a guy doesn’t make you married is like saying you’re only married if it happens in a church, you’re wearing white, a preacher officiates, somebody sings a sappy romance song, at least one of the women cries and your mother acts like a pain in the ass. I mean, really? Is that in the Bible somewhere? (no)
The point is, as a Christian, you either want to please God or you don’t, which means you either commit yourself to being obedient to the Word or you don’t. Think about it.

The Top 5 Things Christians Believe That Aren’t True

Artisanal Toad38 Comments
Let God be true and every man a liar. Tradition can be a good thing, but not when it contradicts God’s Word, adds to God’s Word or adds burdens upon the people that God did not give them.
These are the top five points of “doctrine” that just about all modern Christians and churchians hold which do not agree with Scripture.
1. Divorce between two married Christians is permitted in cases of adultery.
Christians claim they are no longer under the Law of Moses, but the Law of Moses permitted a man to divorce his wife for sexual immorality. However, there is a specific prohibition on two married Christians getting divorced at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. The exception for sexual immorality is no longer there because for Christians the only exception to the no-divorce rule is if they are married to a non-Christian who leaves them.
Everyone points at the words of Jesus in Matthew 19 and Matthew 5, and they are correct for people under the Law. For those in Christ there is a special prohibition on two married believers getting divorced. This issue is #1 in terms of getting Christians fighting mad, because both Matthew 19 and especially Matthew 5:31-32 made it clear that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. That means all those Christians who divorced their Christian spouse for adultery/abuse/whatever are not really divorced, they are still married. If the wife “married” another guy, they aren’t really married because the only thing a married woman can do with another guy is commit adultery. If the guy married another woman, he now has two wives, which leads us to the next one:
2. Polygyny is a wrong, marriage is one man and one woman.
God regulated polygyny in the Law. God condoned polygyny in 2nd Samuel 12:8, taking credit for giving David multiple wives. God commanded polygyny in Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the case of the Levirate marriage. God participated in polygyny, stating in Jeremiah 31:31-32 that He had 2 wives. Unlike the specific prohibition on divorce between two married Christians and the specific prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes (that was NOT forbidden in the Law), there is no prohibition on polygyny in the New Testament.
Women hate the idea of polygyny because it robs them of their supreme power within monogamy, the ability to refuse sex to their husband. To add insult to injury, in polygyny the wives are forced to compete for the attention of their husband and the only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants: a sweet, feminine, submissive and sexually available wife. Men hate the idea of polygyny because only about 10% of men are Alpha enough to do it and the idea that some guy has a sexual smorgasbord waiting at home drives them crazy with jealousy and envy.
There are many, many arguments that Christians make to try to say that polygyny is wrong. Every single argument fails. I especially like the “Very Words of Jesus!” argument that claims Matthew 19:4-5 is a prohibition on polygyny. That is my favorite because if it was true, there is no Christianity. You see, Deuteronomy 4:2 is a command not to add to the Law or to subtract from it. That is repeated again in Deuteronomy 12:32 and it’s also the last command of the Bible.
If Jesus meant to forbid polygyny in Matthew 19:4-5, He would have been violating the Law of Moses, which is a transgression of the Law, a sin. If Jesus had sinned He would not have been a perfect sacrifice, the payment for sin would not have been made and Christianity would all be a lie. So, Jesus either didn’t prohibit polygyny and He is the Messiah, or He did, He sinned and He is not the Christ. You choose. I go with the no ban on polygyny.
3. Pre-marital sex is a sin.
In Exodus 22:16-17, if a man (doesn’t matter if he is married or not) seduces a virgin, they are married unless the father exercises his rights under Numbers 30 to annul her agreement to marry. In Deuteronomy 22:28-29 the Law says if a virgin is forced to have sex with a man and they are discovered, they are married and the father cannot refuse the marriage. He has to pay a bride price of 50 shekels of silver (very high) and he can never divorce her all the days of his life. In both of these cases, there is no penalty on the man for having sex with the virgin, in fact, sex with the virgin is the consummation of the marriage so it’s actually marriage sex. ‘
There is no mention anywhere in the Law of sex (by either a married man or a single man) of having sex with a widow or a divorced woman. Sex with such a woman, unlike a virgin, is not the consummation of marriage unless the man and the widow or divorced woman agree to marry. There is no prohibition or penalty for having sex with such a woman, just as there was no prohibition on having sex with an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.
This is the #3 issue that gets Christians riled up like nothing else. When confronted with what the Bible actually says and more importantly, does not say, they squirm like a handful of worms trying to come up with something- anything -in the Bible that will make extra-marital sex a sin. Because it only applies to men and women who are not married.
4. If a husband has sex with a woman who is not his wife it’s adultery.
Maybe, but only if he has sex with another man’s wife. The crime of adultery requires a married woman. No married woman, no adultery. Women really, really hate this because a married man is permitted to have sex with women other than his wife (unless he took a vow to forsake all others- and where do you think that vow came from?) while the women commit adultery if they do it.
5. Female – Female sex is a sin.
There is literally no mention of female – female sex in the Bible, anywhere. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say (putting the two verses together) “Where there is no Law, there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.” So, if the Law didn’t say it was a sin it isn’t a sin. In the New Testament there were some additional restrictions that only apply to Christians, but again, there is no mention in the Bible of female – female sex. It isn’t a sin.
Where does that leave us?
In really, really bad shape. If I presented any one or two of these issues, the vast majority of Christians respond “That’s impossible. That can’t be!” Presenting just the top 5, a pattern emerges. Not only does it demonstrate that God’s ideas about proper behavior are distinctly at odds from what is being taught in the churches, but it literally turns at least a third of established doctrine on its head.
Unfortunately, it gets worse. One of the points I made is an observation so devastating to the church and society today that I’m willing to bet none of you have seen it. Yes, the thing about Christians not being allowed to divorce their Christian spouse has created a lot of institutional adultery in the church, but one of the others has created a problem so huge that it dwarfs the problem of divorce within the church. Go ahead, look over the list again and Vote.

Which Issue Causes The Biggest Problem In The Church?
All of these issues create problems in the church, but one of the big problems (not the biggest) is the effect wrong teaching and doctrine has had on our definitions of terms that are used over and over again in the New Testament. The right of a man to have more than one wife and the fact that a married man having sex with a widow or divorced woman isn’t a sin means that by definition a married man can only commit adultery if he has sex with someone else’s wife.
Terms like Lust, fornication, sexual immorality, adultery, sodomy and even homosexuality are all incorrectly defined by today’s church, causing a lot of problems. But the biggest problem of all is caused by that issue of pre-marital sex not being a sin. The reason is there is no such thing as premarital sex for a virgin because the Law states that if a virgin is seduced, she is married. Her father has the right to annul the marriage when he hears of it and demand the return of his daughter, but people in the church are taught that having sex does not create a marriage. That, unfortunately, does not comport with what Scripture actually says and does not say.
It is critical to understand that when reading the Law, what is not said is just as important as what is said, and in some cases more important.
Read Exodus 22:16-17 very carefully:
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her his wife. If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”
  • The man seduced the virgin and lay with her.
  • The man must pay the bride price for his wife.
  • If the father annuls the marriage (absolutely refuses to give her to him).
  • The man must pay an amount equal to the dowry for virgins.
Consider what this passage does not say:
  • Implied (but not stated) is the virgin agreed to give the man her virginity.
  • Implied (but not stated) is the man knew the woman was a virgin.
  • The text provides no censure, prohibition or penalty for taking her virginity.
  • The text does not give the woman a choice about the marriage, only her father.
The virgin has no agency, and that means her father has the authority to give her in marriage against her will, just as he has the right to refuse her a marriage she wants. His authority under Numbers 30 is such that he can negate or annul any agreement or vow she makes when he learns of it. This point is driven home by Deuteronomy 22:28-29:
“If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 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.”
  • The man does not seduce the virgin, he seizes her.
  • If they are discovered, they are married.
  • The man must pay 50 Shekels of Silver to her father
  • Because he has violated her he cannot divorce her all his days.
Consider now what the passage does not say:
  • The passage does not state the father has a choice in her marriage, she has been seized.
  • There is no penalty for the man if they are not discovered.
  • There is no penalty for the man if discovered, rather, restrictions on the marriage.
  • Nowhere in the text does it state the woman has a choice in whether she’s married.
  • The text provides no information on what happens if they are not discovered.
Comparing the two passages, we see that the man who seduces the virgin and takes her virginity is married to her unless her father does not forbid it. In the case of the virgin who was forced, she is married to him unless they were not caught and her father cannot annul the marriage. An example of getting caught is when the 200 men from the tribe of Benjamin hid in the vineyards outside Shiloh and when the girls came out to dance for a festival they each grabbed a woman to be his wife and took them back home to the land of the tribe of Benjamin.
It should be obvious that the virgin does not have agency (the ability to consent or not consent) because she can be married to the guy who forced her. That, no matter how much it causes women to scream, is not the problem.
The problem is with the fact that the virgin who is seduced is married to the man she gives her virginity to. Any serious study of the Bible reveals that the only acts necessary to initiate a marriage is the intent of the man to marry and if the woman is a virgin, the consummation of the marriage. If the woman is a widow or divorced woman, the initiation of marriage requires the intent of the man, the consent of the woman and the consummation of the marriage.
Because the virgin is a special class of woman who does not have the capacity to consent or not consent to marriage, taking the girls virginity is a public statement on the part of the man that he is marrying her and the act of doing so is the consummation of their marriage. Think about that and reflect on the fact that 80% of “unmarried” Evangelical women report they are no longer virgins.
The Evangelicals got it wrong. The 80% of the non-virgin Evangelical women who are not “officially” married are actually married, don’t realize it and they are committing adultery with every additional partner they bed. Why? Their father had the chance to annul the marriage when he heard of it and did not do so. Seriously. What father today understands what the last two passages even say, much less believes that having her cherry popped means his little girl just got married and he has 24 hours to annul it on the day he learns of it (Numbers 30, the Law of Vows)?
And when that woman finally “officially” walks down the aisle wearing a white gown to get “officially” married, she is doing so as a woman ineligible to marry because she is already married to another man and her “official marriage” is simply institutionalizing her adultery. The point of Matthew 5:31-32 was that God will not accept an illegitimate divorce. How much more so when there was no divorce at all?
How many “married couples” in your church are actually married to each other? It’s pretty much guaranteed that only the ones in which the wife has an N=1 are actually married. The rest are ALL committing adultery unless the woman’s father annulled her marriage after she lost her virginity or if she lost her virginity by being raped and not discovered.
Which is worse? The level of adultery in the church demonstrated by what the Word says, or the fact the people in the church refuse to accept what God said about the initiation of marriage and reject teachings of Scripture in this matter?
The real question is how to fix the problem, but it should be obvious that the problem cannot be solved without first recognizing the magnitude of the problem. The refusal of the church to recognize the issue of fraudulent, illegitimate divorces and “remarriage” in the church is sufficient to demonstrate that this is an intractable problem.