Is this person married? If not then why?

[Knoxienne]

But I thought people in the OT had to marry or pay a large sum if they fornicated before marriage......

It should be that way, but then again, that's why it's in the Bible!

The boy has to marry the girl and he can't put her away all his days. This practice would certainly cut down on fornication if a lad knew he had to pay three years wages (let's say 50 grand a year) if he decided he didn't want to marry her. And whatever he couldn't pay, he'd have to work off.

Also, if another guy comes around and doesn't like the fact that the girl's not a virgin, the promise of 150 large in his bank account might sweeten the pot.

Ah, for the good old days before Lincoln's war...

 

[Scott1]

Thank you for all your responses thus far,

First of all I want to make clear that I am not trying to promote "secret sex marriage ceremonies" It is clear that we should make a covenant before family, church and government.

To part one of your statement, yes, a Christian would be forgiven

To part two- No because in the NT and OT we are told that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman, therefore that sexual union with another person is adultery NOT marriage.

To Kathleen, in the OT the father had to decide whether to A- have the rapist be bound to that women B- Pay a hefty price for steeling what is not his, or C- have the rapist killed under penalty of OT law
(I could be wrong, is there anyone who knows the actual answer to Kathleens statement?)

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXIV
Of Marriage and Divorce

I. Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.[1]

II. Marriage was ordained for the mutual help of husband and wife,[2] for the increase of mankind with a legitimate issue, and of the Church with an holy seed;[3] and for preventing of uncleanness.[4]

III. It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry, who are able with judgment to give their consent.[5] Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord.[6] And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.[7]

...

Scripture proofs

5] HEB 13:4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 1TI 4:3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. 1CO 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. 38 So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. GEN 24:57 And they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth.

[6] 1CO 7:39 The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

[7] GEN 34:14 And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us. EXO 34:16 And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. DEU 7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son. 4 For they will turn away thy son from following me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly. 1KI 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father. NEH 13:25 And I contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves. 26 Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless even him did outlandish women cause to sin. 27 Shall we then hearken unto you to do all this great evil, to transgress against our God in marrying strange wives? MAL 2:11 Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the Lord which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god. 12 The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the Lord of hosts. 2CO 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

It also requires consenting to be married. The contract aspect is based on lawful consent of both parties.

Remember, this was true in the Old Testament also (that both parties had to consent to marriage), even though it was not always followed by customs or culture.

 

[Peairtach]

Then there would be the problem of adjusting this law to the New Testament injunction to not marry an unbeliever.

In the Old Covenant, an Israelite could marry an Israelite, but clearly they weren't all believers.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

We see this with the story of Jacob's daughter Dinah. She was violated, but Jacob would not permit her to marry until the offending men were circumcised.

She was violated in the true sense that she was seduced. And since there was no rape, but seduction, the just penalty would have been a fine or marriage. And that's why Jacob cursed his two kids, because the death penalty is just for rape, but not for seduction.

Perhaps. My only point in that illustration is that she was not considered married because of the immoral act. She would only be married once she was officially and publically given to the man to be his wife.

-----Added 8/3/2009 at 03:24:38 EST-----

Yeah I clarified further on, obviously in Deut22:28 the premarital sex did LEAD to marriage, that is what I was meaning...

It may have lead to it by way of consequence, if the father permitted it, but the act itself does not marry them.

Think of it this way, if the sexual union constitutes marriage, then the act does so in every circumstance. You can't just pick and choose which relationship would constitute marriage or not. It's the same act no matter what variables the relationships contribute to it.

That a special union takes place in the act is clear from 1 Cor 6, especially vs. 16 where sexual union with a prostitute means becoming "one body with her." This is true of the act no matter what the relationship is. So, if you're going to argue that this becoming "one body with her" is marriage, then a man who committs adultery is in fact marrying other women. But Scripture never defines this sexual "union" as marriage. But because the act does unite two people as "one body", the act is suppose to be enjoyed only within marriage. That's the only way the sexual union performs it's God-given purpose.

It's almost like the Lord's Supper. The sacrament is intended to strengthen faith, not create it. Those who partake unworthily do not gain the benefits of the sacrament, but only harm themselves. So in a similar way, sexual union is intended to strengthen marital intimacy, not create marriage. To participate outside of marriage only harms the two people.

 

[charliejunfan]

Thank you all for your responses, they have been enlightening

 

[he beholds]

I thought of a thing on the con-side of the argument. In the NT, when Jesus confronts the lady at the well, he says, "You have had five husbands and the man you are with now is not your husband." I'm assuming for her to be with him, she is being intimate with him, or what was the problem. If she was intimate with him, Jesus did not consider just the act as marriage.

John 4:16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered him, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You are right in saying, ‘I have no husband’; 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one you now have is not your husband. What you have said is true.”

 

[Peairtach]

It turns out that I checked Vern Poythress"s " The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses" and he has a very full and culturally nuanced discussion of this law (pp. 197-204).

None of us mentioned Exodus 22:16, which appears to show that the father and daughter could decide that the man wasn't a suitable match. That shows a degree of ignorance of biblical law by all of us who took part in this discussion.

The man would still pay the bride price if he wasn't to marry the girl, and it would be an even larger amount if a degree of coercion had been involved.

Very interesting discussion both here and by Poythress. Something like this should be introduced in church and state to discourage underage sex and pregnancy, which is a great blight on sociey.

 

[Edward]

It turns out that I checked Vern Poythress"s " The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses" and he has a very full and culturally nuanced discussion of this law (pp. 197-204).

None of us mentioned Exodus 22:16, which appears to show that the father and daughter could decide that the man wasn't a suitable match. That shows a degree of ignorance of biblical law by all of us who took part in this discussion.

The man would still pay the bride price if he wasn't to marry the girl, and it would be an even larger amount if a degree of coercion had been involved.

Very interesting discussion both here and by Poythress. Something like this should be introduced in church and state to discourage underage sex and pregnancy, which is a great blight on sociey.

I was trying to remember the title of that book a few months ago so that I could get it and read it. I'll look for it Sunday in the church library.

 

[JennyG]

This is a fast-moving thread. Did anyone mention 1 Cor 6 v 16?

...know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh

 

[Peairtach]

Poythress points out that harlots wouldn't have been able to use this law.
Promiscuous women as we have them today, young women who go around having sexual relations without receiving money, apparently were not a common feature in Israel as they are in depraved, modern Western societies. I think there is a passage in the prophets that looks upon such behaviour as worse than harlotry.

Poythress says that in a modern adaptation of this law it wouldn't be able to be used by harlots, or harlots that have sexual relations for "love" or fun, rather than cash.

I don't want to get into the subject of th****my as there is a moratorium on it; but I think that Poythress hasn't realised the full implications for the modern state's commitment to the Mosaic death penalties, of the fact that capital offenders were paying an additional price to God in death, because they lacked a sacrificial substitute animal's life.