# Marriage Scenario Poll



## doulosChristou (Jul 30, 2003)

[i:ec47951a84]A man and woman, who are not married, have a child out of wedlock. Both the man and woman are not believers. The man goes off to prison because he has committed some crimes. Later, he gets out of prison having made a profession of faith and is likely converted. His girlfriend (who bore his child) would like to get back with him now that he is out of prison. She remains an unbeliever for now. Should he marry her because they have had a child together even though she is an unbeliever? Is it wrong for him to marry her because she is an unbeliever, even though they had a child 
together? How do you answer? [/i:ec47951a84]

This question was recently asked on another forum on which I participate, and I was shocked at how divided posters were over the answer to this so I thought I'd run it by you guys too. I think the answer is obvious, but I'll reserve my answer until there's been some feedback.

dC


----------



## pastorway (Jul 30, 2003)

He is responsible for care of the child and the mother, but is forbidden by Scripture to marry her unless she is also a believer.

I would counsel him to minister to this girl and his child, with the goal of bringing her to Christ and then marrying her.

If she does not convert, he cannot compound his sin by marrying her.

[b:8dbdbf0ced]2 Cor 6[/b:8dbdbf0ced]
14Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? 15And what accord has Christ with Belial? Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever?


Add to this the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 and we see that if two are already married and one is converted and the other not, then the lost spouse is free to leave the marriage (divorce) and then the saved spouse is free from that marriage, free to remarry. The only condition for remarriage being that they marry in the Lord, meaning another believer.


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2003)

doesnt Paul say that the unbelieving wife would be sanctified by her believing husband?

personally without taking a proper biblical opion which is wrong of course but I would say if it were me I would feel the responsibility of marrying the girfriend and raising the kid up to be godly. thats just my opinion though.

blade


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Jul 30, 2003)

If the situation is as you described I believe that he should marry her. He has already joined himself to her physically and that union has produced offspring. This act, foolish though it may be, has resulted in responsiblities both to her and to the son. The scriptures I have in support of this is:

The story of Hosea. 

God's command in the law that when a man sleeps with a virgin who is not pledged to be married he shall marry her. 

1 Cor. 6:16 which implies that it is the joining of bodies that make one flesh. 

1 Cor. 7:12-16 &quot;and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.&quot;

Now, I could come up with scriptural support for the opposing view, but instead I will leave that to those that hold the opposing view. :tongue:


---

Did you notice that the three of us, Pastorway, Blade, and I all posted at the same time! :shocked2:




[Edited on 7-30-2003 by ChristianasJourney]


----------



## Gregg (Jul 30, 2003)

[quote:bea5b83d3a]_Originally posted by pastorway

Add to this the teaching of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 and we see that if two are already married and one is converted and the other not, then the lost spouse is free to leave the marriage (divorce) and then the saved spouse is free from that marriage, free to remarry. The only condition for remarriage being that they marry in the Lord, meaning another believer. [/quote:bea5b83d3a]
_______________________

Reply...

I would say by the above statement that you are in grave error. If the lost spouse leaves the marriage, the saved spouse cannot remarry unless his spouse dies.

If it were the case that remarriage were possible (even for the innocent spouse) Then Jesus could have never made the statement in Luke 16:18 where he says

Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, commitith adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband commitith adultery (KJV)

There is no clause here for a believer to remarry even if his unbelieving spouse leaves. The marriage must be reconciled or the believing spouse must remain single (unless his spouse dies). Marriage is a covenant that is only broken by death.

In 1 Cor 7, we can let scripture interpret itself when it says in (vs 11) that the departing spouse should remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband.

In vs 15 when it says that a brother or sister is not under bondage, that does not mean they are free to remarry (see vs 11). It only means that if the unbelieving spouse should depart (let him depart)._


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Jul 30, 2003)

CJ,
it was predestined

blade


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 30, 2003)

What a can of worms you've opened with this one 

I'd have to agree with Pastor Way on this one. I think he said it on another post too, sex doesn't mean marriage. Premarital sex does not maritally join a couple. With this case, this man should certainly provide for his child both physically and spiritually as much as the situation permits. He should also witness to his girlfiend and if she converts then marry her. 
Blade, the situation you are refering to about the unbelieving spouse being sanctified through the believing spouse refers, if I remember right, to a person who later converted after he was already married to the unbeliever.


----------



## johnpauljudah (Jul 30, 2003)

*Tisk tisk*

I have to agree with way here. Regardless of the circumstance a christian cannot marry a child of satan. 2 Cor 6.


Me and Mr. Way agreed on something:shocked:... scary.. i know


Jpj:wr48:


----------



## twogunfighter (Jul 31, 2003)

How can the man provide spiritually for the child if he does not marry the girl? What is his greater responsibility the physical provision or the spiritual provision ie catechizing etc.? 

Ex 22:16
And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 

Ex 22:17
If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. 

De 22:28
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 

De 22:29
Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days. 

Where does the New Testament abrogate the Lev 22 verses? Be not unequally yoked is not good enough, because they were not supposed to be unequally yoked under the OT either. The only one that could negate the man marrying the girl that he defiled is the father of the girl. If he decides that the husband is of poor quality he can receive bride price alone. 

So in the above scenario, if the father of the girl is ok with the marriage then the man is obligated to marry the girl. 

my :wr50:

Chuck


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 31, 2003)

:shocked:

I'm [b:f3e368d04e]shocked[/b:f3e368d04e] again! I thought maybe it was just the other forum, but we are equally divided over here. To me, I just thought it was obvious that he is forbidden to be unequally yoked. Augustine fathered children out of wedlock prior to his conversion yet never felt he should marry and wrote strongly against marrying an unbeliever. I'm just shocked that we're divided! :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

BTW, the scenario above is a real one; if I hear how the converted ex-con decides regarding this matter, I'll post it here.

dC


----------



## ChristianasJourney (Jul 31, 2003)

I want to add a couple of comments--

2 Cor 6:14 &quot;Be ye not unequally yoked.&quot; Is not specifically referring to marriage (although it is often used in conjunction with marriage and is inclusive of marriage) but to ALL partnerships between Christians and non-christians...This has been important to my family because occasionally we consider business partnerships. So at what point does a person become &quot;yoked&quot;? Is it only at the point a covenant has been agreed upon? I don't think so. in my opinion With or without a marriage certificate this gentleman is already under yoke with this woman by the fact that they both have parented a son. He has that responsibility, that association, that tie with her (with them) he is under yoke. At this point he should marry her, give her his name, and remove the title of &quot;illegitimate&quot; from his son's name.


Matt 12:7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.


----------



## kceaster (Jul 31, 2003)

*The law is clear...*

This is yet again one of those instances where we seem to think that God changed His mind.

I am sorry, Phillip. But sex does mean marriage. How can you glean anything other than that out of the OT?

In the case of those already married, it is adultery. In the case of those not already married or betrothed it is marriage. In the case of two who are intimate with each other but do not get married it is adultery with their future spouses. Why do you think it is so important for the marriage bed to be kept pure? God sees sex within the marriage as the only sex allowed. Sex outside of marriage is always adultery, which is why God commanded for men who sleep with free women to marry them (Deut 22:29), so that the marriage be would be undefiled.

I see nothing in the NT that changes this in the least.

Surely there is forgiveness for this sin and people are not stoned to death for it. However, has God commanded to be done?

It would seem that Paul's command to not yoke ourselves with unbelievers is to be heeded. But once intimacy has taken place, are these two not already yoked?

Teaching that a man does not have to marry a woman who has no husband, just because they are not both believers, goes against very clear commands in Scriptures. If this is true, I have seen my first contradiction, and if it is a contradiction then the Bible is false.

Once they are married, then it becomes a question of abandonment and release. But marriage was not an option. They must be married for abandonment and release to have happened.

Also, it is quite clear that neither one may marry again, unless they be reconciled.

What does God see in this situation?

He sees a household! A piece of paper and a ceremony are not proofs God needs of a household. NOT TO MENTION, that there is a child God has provided for these two. Children are a gift from God, they are not born without His intervention.

Why should God change His stance on such matters? How can we think that the commands of God can be changed in this way?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Gregg (Jul 31, 2003)

> [i:fe50ae64d0]Originally posted by doulosChristou[/i:fe50ae64d0]
> [i:fe50ae64d0]A man and woman, who are not married, have a child out of wedlock. Both the man and woman are not believers. The man goes off to prison because he has committed some crimes. Later, he gets out of prison having made a profession of faith and is likely converted. His girlfriend (who bore his child) would like to get back with him now that he is out of prison. She remains an unbeliever for now. Should he marry her because they have had a child together even though she is an unbeliever? Is it wrong for him to marry her because she is an unbeliever, even though they had a child
> together? How do you answer? [/i:fe50ae64d0]
> ______________________
> ...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 31, 2003)

Just to throw some more fuel on the fire here....

It is my understanding that those OT marriage laws apply to people in the covenant community, i.e. believers. If this is the case, then they (the rapist and victim) technically would not be unequally yoked, would they? To add to that, consider the situation with Jacob's daughter Dinah. She a covenant child was raped by a pagan. She was not allowed to marry until the pagan husband converted. Now, there was of course some treacherous plan behind this decision thanks to Levi and Simeon but still it is interesting in light of our discussion. 
It would seem (at least for now until one of you corrects me  ) that the OT marriage laws really don't apply to this situation in the poll. 
Any thoughts?


----------



## pastorway (Jul 31, 2003)

Sex does not mean marriage or there would be no exceptions in the OT - a man could refuse to allow his daughter to marry a fellow even after they had sex!!

Exodus 22:16-17.

If this is true, there is more to marriage than physical union.

Further - when Jesus forgave the prostitute &quot;caught in the act&quot; He did not say, &quot;Go back to your husband, the first man you ever slept with.&quot; He said, &quot;Go and sin no more.&quot;

He also talked with the woman at the well and said that the man she was living with at the time was not her husband!! She had had so many, but this one was not a husband. What was different? Not the sex!! 

Read John 4:17-18 and 8:11.

If you really believe that sex = marriage, then how many are not married to their spouse at all but only commiting adultery because they are &quot;really&quot; married to the first person they ever had sex with? I mean really, if you have had sex with one other than your spouse must you file for divorce with that one before you can get married with the rings, vows, and ceremony? Or would you be unable to marry then because you were divorced?? 

To follow that line of thinking make syou married to the first person you have sex with, period, with no possibility for any spouse other than you first sexual partner. 

Fornication does not make you married. Enter a covenant relationship in the sight of God and the State makes you married.

And as to this discussion, marriage to a non-believer is not the &quot;penalty&quot; for premarital sex, baby or no baby.

As for divorce and remarriage, I will start a new thread on that.

Phillip

[Edited on 7-31-03 by pastorway]


----------



## sastark (Jul 31, 2003)

The man has no responsibility to marry the woman! What if the man had done this twice and had two children by two different women? He can't marry both.

I agree with pastorway, &quot;[i:9261dd1b31]If she does not convert, he cannot compound his sin by marrying her[/i:9261dd1b31]&quot;

Two sins do not make a good work, and Christians are specifically told not to be joined to non-Christians (what fellowship has light with darkness?)

This is a very interesting scenario though, and I do feel for the parties involved. May God have mercy on the unbelieving woman and her child!


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 31, 2003)

A question for KC and Two Gun Fighter:

Would you not consider Deut 22:28,29 a part of the civil law of the nation of Israel, which (according to the Westminster Confession XIX:4 ) has passed away? Or, are these verses a part of the eternal moral law?

If these verses are of the moral and not the civil, then is the part about giving the father 50 shekels of silver as payment morally binding on the offender today?


----------



## kceaster (Jul 31, 2003)

[quote:08316e289e][i:08316e289e]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:08316e289e]
A question for KC and Two Gun Fighter:

Would you not consider Deut 22:28,29 a part of the civil law of the nation of Israel, which (according to the Westminster Confession XIX:4 ) has passed away? Or, are these verses a part of the eternal moral law?

If these verses are of the moral and not the civil, then is the part about giving the father 50 shekels of silver as payment morally binding on the offender today? [/quote:08316e289e]

The point of my whole post was that the marriage bed is to be undefiled. These case laws do not cover it all. The overarching law is do not commit adultery. This command covers all types of sexual sin.

Phillip, you are not looking at the prohibitive law correctly. You are trying to apply case law when you should be applying the commandment. What does the commandment teach?

And, the marriage bed is already defiled if a couple has multiple partners going into it. I do not care what scenarios you come up with. This does not mean that we remain unforgiven. But it does mean that we do not treat sex with the proper respect it deserves. Jesus taught us to revere marriage, and there is more talk about what happens in the bedroom than what happens in any other part of marriage. Why is that? Because God cares about our sexual lives! To say or teach anything different is to negate what the Bible says about sex.

If the improper use rates capital punishment, we better take it seriously.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## johnpauljudah (Aug 1, 2003)

*umm*

Is he married to all his sexual partners or just the first one?uzzled:

Jpj:wr48:


----------



## kceaster (Aug 1, 2003)

*JPJ...*

[quote:a6a38989dc][i:a6a38989dc]Originally posted by johnpauljudah[/i:a6a38989dc]
Is he married to all his sexual partners or just the first one?uzzled:

Jpj:wr48: [/quote:a6a38989dc]

The question is not how many wives does he have, the question is how many times has he committed adultery on his first wife?

Again, I am not saying that this sin is unpardonable or outside of the range of God's forgiveness and Christ's atonement.

We should remember that when Jesus expounded the law on adultery, he was not speaking in the context of marriage. He was speaking in the context of sinful thoughts and lust. I do not think that we can imply that Jesus said, &quot;But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman (and is already married) to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.&quot;

This is why the puritans correctly put all sexual sin under the 7th commandment.

We have taken adultery to mean only sex between one or more married persons (not married). But, it can also mean sex between a man or a woman outside of the confines of marriage, when they have had more than that partner.

Some simply want to call this fornication, but fornication falls under the 7th commandment as well.

This is why we must do our best to protect our sons and daughters from sexual sin. It can become most complicated and can make them live with guilt for the rest of their lives.

The bottom line is this:

Do not have sex or even think about sex with any one other than the one partner your God has provided you. To do anything else is adultery.

AS A RESULT, men, on the whole, need to ask God's forgiveness daily for this sin! I have had to repent of this many times in my life. Which one of us has not had impure thoughts toward someone who is not our wife?

Some act as if this is legalism. At what point does sexual sin become a &quot;freedom&quot; issue?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2003)

[quote:80e4c54699][i:80e4c54699]posted by KC[/i:80e4c54699]
Do not have sex or even think about sex with any one other than the one partner your God has provided you. To do anything else is adultery.[/quote:80e4c54699]

Correct!!

BUT, having sex does not make you married. Marriage is a covenantal relationship consumated by sex, not initiated by it! 

God makes the husband and wife one flesh - but nowhere do the Scriptures say that sex makes you one flesh! Being one flesh is more than physical union. Intimacy is just one part of a husband and wife being &quot;glued&quot; together.

Again, no one has explained how Jesus could say what He did to the woman at the well or the woman caught in adultery if sex makes you married! 

Jesus said that the woman at the well had had 5 husbands and the man she was with now was not her husband! Are we to believe then that that means she was not &quot;living with&quot; this man in a sexual relationship? She had 5 husbands and was living with a man not her husband - not one husband and 5 adulterous relationships!!

Sex does not equal marriage. Marriage is entering into a covenantal relationship.

Phillip


----------



## pastorway (Aug 1, 2003)

Here is another thought that was brought to my attention - 

IF sex makes you married, what do we do with those who are homosexual and their first act of sex is with someone of the same sex? Are they married? 

The Bible has warnings against immorality between men and women, men and men, women and women, and men or women with animals! ALL of it is immorality. ALL of it is a violation of God's purpose and design for sex. 

Sex is intended for married people. A man and woman who have entered an exclusive covenant relationship with each other and God.

Sex outside of marriage, any sex outside of marriage, is sin. Sex does not initiate the covenantal relationship of marriage but is intended to be enjoyed by those already in that relationship.

It is apparent that more pastors need to be preaching and teaching on what the Bible actually says about sex and marriage!!

Phillip


----------



## twogunfighter (Aug 1, 2003)

Phillip,

First let me say that I disagree with KC that sex = marriage. Marriage is indeed a covenant that must be entered into before God at least (this takes care of desert island scenarios), and preferably before God and man. I do think that it is possible for marriage to be beyond the purview of the state if the state has marriage laws that are immoral ie if the state required blasphemous language in marriage vows then we should refuse to be married according to that state's laws and it may be necessary for a pastor to conduct secret biblical marriages. 

The woman at the well was to go back to her last lawfully wedded husband and the woman caught in adultery was to go back to her husband. Levitical law is clear that after a divorce if there has been an intervening marriage there can be no remarriage of the divorced persons. 

[quote:3063682597]
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some F75 uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance. 
[/quote:3063682597] 

My point with both the Exodus and Deuteronomy passage was that the man incurs a responsibility to marry a woman as soon as he has sex with her. Both passages tell us that if the man is not worthy of marriage then the father can refuse to allow the girl to be married but the [u:3063682597]man's[/u:3063682597] obligation remains the same regardless. He especially has that responsibility when he has a child with her. 

[quote:3063682597]
1 Corinthians 7:10-16 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: 11 But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. 12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. F18 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how F19 knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife? 
[/quote:3063682597] 

The point of the whole unbeleiving spouse verbage in this passage is so our children will be holy. I suppose that the man could try to get custody of the child in order to properly bring it up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord but it seems to me that God is very clear in the two OT passages that if the woman is willing then the man has an obligation to marry her. God gives the man the responsibility for the woman and the child. I am saying that in this instance the man would be failing to provide a home for his own child. A home is much more than financial provision. This concept of a man being responsible for his own children is a principle that is seen throughout the bible and ought to be followed rather than the rather narrow command that you have referenced. I equate it to the conflict of &quot;God hates divorce&quot; vs &quot;Thou shalt not kill&quot; when a woman is in danger from her husband. 

[quote:3063682597]
But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.
[/quote:3063682597] 


PuritanSailor -

The story of Dinah does not apply because her male authority could have rejected the marriage offer of the pagan. If the girl was a Christian and the man was an unbeleiver then I would say absolutely not. The girl is not obligated and should not willingly bring her child under the authority of a non-Christian. 

Dan 

As you can see from the above I am applying a principle not a strict adherence to that law. 

Chuck


----------



## Susan (Aug 1, 2003)

TWO GUN FIGHTER:[quote:c90b7a69d2]My point with both the Exodus and Deuteronomy passage was that the man incurs a responsibility to marry a woman as soon as he has sex with her. Both passages tell us that if the man is not worthy of marriage then the father can refuse to allow the girl to be married but the man's obligation remains the same regardless. He especially has that responsibility when he has a child with her. [/quote:c90b7a69d2]

Look at this passage from Ezra 9: 10- 15. It is still sin to marry an unbeliever. 
[quote:c90b7a69d2]
10 And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? For we have forsaken Your commandments, 11 which You commanded by Your servants the prophets, saying, 'The land which you are entering to possess is an unclean land, with the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, with their abominations which have filled it from one end to another with their impurity. 12 Now therefore, do not give your daughters as wives for their sons, nor take their daughters to your sons; and never seek their peace or prosperity, that you may be strong and eat the good of the land, and leave it as an inheritance to your children forever.' 13 And after all that has come upon us for our evil deeds and for our great guilt, since You our God have punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and have given us such deliverance as this, 14 should we again break Your commandments, and join in marriage with the people committing these abominations? Would You not be angry with us until You had consumed us, so that there would be no remnant or survivor? 15 O Lord God of Israel, You are righteous, for we are left as a remnant, as it is this day. Here we are before You, in our guilt, though no one can stand before You because of this!&quot; [/quote:c90b7a69d2]
Israel sinned greatly against the Lord by taking wives that they were forbidden by Him to take.

I think the man in this situation should take responsibility for his child, yet he needs to guard himself against temptation while ministering to the child's mother and sharing the gospel with her and only marry her IF she becomes a believer.
Susan


----------



## kceaster (Aug 2, 2003)

*Phillip...*

[quote:2f64bf5682]It is apparent that more pastors need to be preaching and teaching on what the Bible actually says about sex and marriage!!

Phillip [/quote:2f64bf5682]

Since I seem to be the only one with whom you disagree, I'll tell my pastor that he could take a few lessons from you on what the Bible actually says about sex and marriage!! And since he is right now preaching through Deuteronomy, he might have to go back and correct a few things.

Really!

You are doing it again, Phillip. You are sounding all sanctimonious, acting as if you and others with whom you agree are the only ones who know the truth about sex and marriage.

Here are my answers:

What to do when first sex is homosexual?

No marriage can obviously come from these acts, but they are, nonetheless, a form of adultery (they break the 7th commandment) - and they are, without a doubt, the most wicked and sinful form. This is not sex it is perversion. There is no union between man and man, female and female, mankind and beast.

You said:
No where does it say that sex makes you married.

There are places that imply that very thing. Jacob was married to Bilhah and Zilpah because &quot;he went in to them.&quot; Deut. 21:13 speaks of how one is to treat a captive woman; &quot;...after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.&quot; In both of these cases, sex and marriage went hand in hand.

Now, I should say that I agree with you that sex is &quot;consummation&quot;. But what happens when consummation happens before the ceremony. It is consumated already. This is why the first act, with no formal marriage is adultery on both parties.

I should also be said that if the father, in the case of his daughter being violated, did have the right to say that there would be no union between them. But was it still sin? And, what happened to these two after that?

The woman caught in adultery. Do you actually think that when Jesus told her to go and sin no more, she had no idea what that meant? Adultery does not make one married, let's get that straight. Technically she was married to the first person that she was ever with. If she really was to go and sin no more, she remained celebate.

The woman at the well. What a complicated case study. Do we use her as a pattern for what the law teaches? She was a multiple adulteress.

Again, I am not saying that there is no forgiveness. But to believe that there are no uncomfortable consequences that come from these actions is ludicrous.

Phillip, just treat the fact of two simple verses. Exegete these for us and tell us that all sex outside of marriage is not adultery.

The first is Deut. 22:28-29 and the second is Matthew 5:28.

If I have sex with multiple partners before I am married, I have cheated on multiple women. I am an adulterer. It falls under the seventh commandment and I stand before a holy God, undone. But, I would be most responsible for the first, because it was at that point, I could have been faithful and kept the marriage bed pure and undefiled.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway (Aug 2, 2003)

Jesus said the woman had 5 husbands and the one she was with was not a husband. Five husbands. Not the first you ever had sex with plus all these adulterous realtionships.

[quote:6b3afa9ef5][b:6b3afa9ef5]John 4[/b:6b3afa9ef5]
16Jesus said to her, &quot;Go, call your husband, and come here.&quot; 17The woman answered and said, &quot;I have no husband.&quot; 
[b:6b3afa9ef5]Jesus said to her, &quot;You have well said, &quot;I have no husband,' 18for [u:6b3afa9ef5]you have had five husbands[/u:6b3afa9ef5], and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly[/b:6b3afa9ef5].&quot; [/quote:6b3afa9ef5]

I do not mean to appear sanctimonious. I am currently preaching a series of sermons on marriage and family from Ephesians 5. I have been studying the issue for a year and a half in preparation to preach. The Bible does not say that sex = marriage and that you enter a marriage covenant by sleeping with a woman. It doesn't. Marriage is more than sex. Sex before marriage violates the commandments of God, but it does not make you married and thus unfaithful to your wife now. You cannot be unfaithful to a woman to whom you are not married. Marriage starts at a certian point in time, and that point is not when you have sex.

As for the verses - Deut. 22:28-29 and Matthew 5:28.

[b:6b3afa9ef5]Deut 22[/b:6b3afa9ef5]
28&quot;If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, 29then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. 

Calvin says: 
[quote:6b3afa9ef5] The object of this passage is the same as that of the foregoing ones. For, whilst all fornication pollutes a man, there is grosser impurity in adultery, because the sanctity of marriage is violated.[/quote:6b3afa9ef5]

The passage is simple. This is not rape, for there is no reason for the woman to cry out. The phrase for &quot;seizes&quot; is different than the verses talking about rape. Beside - if it is rape, we have plenty of evidence that the man who raped her was to be put to death! 

In this case, he &quot;seizes&quot; her by persuation, not force. If the two of them have sex they should be married. They are not married by the act, but must get married if the father so deems it necessary. 

Indeed, according to Exodus 22:16-17:

[i:6b3afa9ef5]16 &quot;If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins.[/i:6b3afa9ef5]

they do not HAVE to get married and they are not considered married until such time as they are formally married. This Scripture clearly elaborates on the passage in Deuteronomy 22. Scripture interprets Scripture. If they have sex they are not married and do not have to get married unless her father says so!


[b:6b3afa9ef5]Matthew 5[/b:6b3afa9ef5]
28But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Jesus simply teaches here that adultery is a matter of the heart. The motive, the lust, carries the same consequence as the act - for Jesus is concerned with the heart more than the body! What is in your heart comes out your mouth and is exposed in your behavior.

Jesus does not say here that if you lust in your heart you are married to the woman!! Otherwise every man on this forum was married in his heart at around age 12 or 13, the first time he lusted after a girl! He says not that you are married by lusting, but that you are already being unfaithful in your heart to the purity to which God has called you.

Calvin says rightly:
[quote:6b3afa9ef5]The design of Christ was to condemn generally the lust of the flesh. He says, that not only those who have seduced their neighbors' wives, but those who have polluted their eyes by an immodest look, are adulterers before God. This is a synec-doche:2 for not only the eyes, but even the concealed flames of the heart, render men guilty of adultery. Accordingly, Paul makes chastity (1 Corinthians 7:34) to consist both in body and in mind. But Christ reckoned it enough to refute the gross mistake which was prevalent: for they thought that it was only necessary to guard against outward adultery. As it is generally by the wantonness of the eyes that temptations are presented to the mind, and as lust enters, as it were, by that door, Christ used this mode of speaking, when he wished to condemn lust: which is evident from the expression, to lust after her. This teaches us also, that not only those who form a deliberate purpose of fornication, but those who admit any polluted thoughts, are reckoned adulterers before God. The hypocrisy of the Papists, therefore, is too gross and stupid, when they affirm that lust is not a sin, until it gain the full consent of the heart. But we need not wonder, that they make sin to be so small a matter: for those who ascribe righteousness to the merit of works must be very dull and stupid in judging of their sins.[/quote:6b3afa9ef5]


In the other verses you list, the taking of the covenant vows is comsummated by the act of sex - but that act alone does not equate to a marriage ceremony taking place.


And while it can be said that all sexual sin violates the seventh command - not all sexual sin is equal to adultery. Fornication is a different sin than adultery. It is listed differently and separately throughout the Scriptures, and even as Calvin was quoted, adultery is a more serious sin than fornication. Fornication is serious! It is not the same as adultery.

The bottom line is this - the Bible nowhere teaches that sex initiates the marital covenant. And anyone who says it does is not understanding the Scriptures. It is that simple. Marriage is a covenant relationship consummated by sex - not entered into when we first have sex!

To say that means that you are not married until you have sex! Why wait until after the ceremony to have &quot;legal&quot; sex? If sex makes you married, why do we need a covenantal ceremony and vows? Really?It makes the marriage ceremony useless - if you want to be married just go have sex and BAM, you're married. 

And that is pure theological hogwash and a mistatement of what the Bible says about sex and marriage.

All for now - 
Phillip

[Edited on 8-2-03 by pastorway]


----------



## Susan (Aug 2, 2003)

Dear Pastor Way,
Your post and your explanation about Deut 22 was very good, but I still have a question. 
You said:
[quote:8d56f73cb2]If the two of them have sex they should be married. They are not married by the act, but must get married if the father so deems it necessary. [/quote:8d56f73cb2]
I know you were not talking about this in the context of the original question, but would you agree that if the two persons involved were an beliver and an unbeliever, that it would be wrong to marry in light of the New Testament teachings?
Would this verse then only apply to two believers?
I noticed the ESV version agrees with you in your explanation of the verse.
[quote:8d56f73cb2]16 "If a man seduces a virgin [4] who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price [5] for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.
footnotes:
22:16 Or a girl of marriageable age; also verse 17 
[5] 22:16 Or engagement present; also verse 17 .[/quote:8d56f73cb2]
I think that some have used the story of Isaac's marriage to Rebecca to support the idea that sex=marriage. But in that marriage, God's guidance was sought and a transaction was made with Rebecca and her family and gifts were given. Rebecca agreed to go and be Isaac's wife and her family also gave her their blessing.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 3, 2003)

Yes Susan (welcome to the Board by the Way) - the two people had to be in the covenant community! Believers may only marry believers and to do otherwise is a sin.

Phillip


----------



## twogunfighter (Aug 4, 2003)

Phillip

I aggree with almost all that you say in this thread [u:5f96320c45]in general.[/u:5f96320c45] Your application to this specific instance is the problem. You seem to say that there
is never an instance that a Christian could marry an unbeleiver and it not be sin. You seem to say that there is not an instance that the &quot;be not unequally yoked&quot; principal would not be trumped by some other higher law. I say that the requirement to physically, emotionally, and spiritually provide for a child is a higher law than the requirement to not marry an unbeleiver. Tithes of anise and cumin are indeed important but there are more important issues. 

Lest you say that unequal yoking is a greater a sin than failing to take on the responsibilities of a father consider this:

[quote:5f96320c45]
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 &quot;When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God delivers them into your hand, and you take them captive, 11 and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and desire her and would take her for your wife, 12 then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. 13 She shall put off the clothes of her captivity, remain in your house, and mourn her father and her mother a full month; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. 14 And it shall be, if you have no delight in her, then you shall set her free, but you certainly shall not sell her for money; you shall not treat her brutally, because you have humbled her. 
[/quote:5f96320c45]

Here God allows an exception to the rule that all marriages must be between persons within the covenant community. David took a Philistine wife. Esther could have easily thrown the competition with the other girls competing to be Ahaseureus' wife (Est 2). She would have just had sex and not actually been unequally yoked. 

When you compare the above to &quot;otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy&quot; it seems a fairly simple matter to figure out which is more important &quot;be not unequally yoked, except if you win the girl in battle, are david and host of other OT saints, or have the oportunity to marry a king and save your people&quot; and &quot;Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, The fruit of the womb is a reward&quot; (which you argued so vehemently for in the birth control thread) as well as &quot;6 &quot;And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up&quot;. If one is faced with the situation of having to break one of the commands then I would always recommend that one become unequally yoked rather than fail to provide for my child.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 4, 2003)

I don't have time to look at the OT passage you cite right now but had one thought. I completely AGREE that this man should provide for the child. But he does not have to marry this girl to do that.

The point is, they are not married and should not be married until and unless they are both saved - but part of his responsibility and even his testiminy to her should be the way he cares for the needs of this child!

All for now - back to work....
PW


----------



## PASSION4TRUTH (Sep 16, 2003)

NO matter what position you hold you still need to read this article by Bahnsen:

www.cmfnow.com

free articles

Moral Obligations for Premarital Relations

:thumbdown: or :thumbup:


----------



## twogunfighter (Sep 17, 2003)

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## pastorway (Sep 17, 2003)

:thumbdown::thumbdown:

:shocked2:


----------



## shelly (Sep 18, 2003)

:thumbup::thumbup:


----------



## Susan (Sep 24, 2003)

I never could find that article you are rating. Judging from some of the names on the site I am suspicious about it. Could someone give me a more specific link so that I can read it?
Thanks!


----------



## Dan.... (Sep 24, 2003)

http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pe152.htm 

:thumbdown::thumbdown:


----------



## luvroftheWord (Sep 25, 2003)

:thumbup::thumbup: of course. God's law is better than man's law.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 25, 2003)

If Bahsen is right, then the giggilo who has slept with 50 women should marry them all and committ polygamy - some that was not inteded since the creation of the world for - &quot;from the beginning it was not so.&quot; Harems come back into vogue, then...

If the giggilo is &quot;giggilizing&quot; with 5 women, all who dump him, say five months later, then he is also &quot;married&quot; to all 5 of them as a result of the &quot;common law&quot; idea.

If they do not all want to be married to the same man, then he has a problem with being in a constant state of adultry with the one woman he decides to marry in another year, etc.

Bahsen's ideas here are going to take him into pracitcal situations that he will never be able to resolve. I have old unsaved friends who slept around with hundreds of women. If Bahnsen is right, then the practical obligations are impossible, and the state and political obligations would caue him to reject the laws of the state. Sticky wickets if you ask me...


----------



## Susan (Sep 25, 2003)

Thanks for the link.
[quote:b92d0fcbc8]When Jesus spoke to the loose woman at the Samaritan well, He indicated[1] that because she "had" five men previously, she has "had five husbands" (John 4:18).[2] One recalls Paul's line of thinking: "he who is joined to a harlot is one body, for He said 'The two shall become one flesh'" (I Corinthians 6:16). [/quote:b92d0fcbc8]
Bahnson has twisted the Scripture about the Samaritan woman to say that she had five partners previously, so therefore that really means they are &quot;husbands&quot;. [quote:b92d0fcbc8]John 4: v.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." [/quote:b92d0fcbc8]He was not just talking about a partner with the previous five. Then Bahnson says that becoming physically one flesh=marriage, but if this is so, the sixth man would have to also be her &quot;husband&quot;. Jesus plainly says he is NOT. :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


----------



## govols (Aug 2, 2004)

*Wow - My taxes*

Are my taxes going to go up or altered because of all of the teens, adults now being married to each other but not really, b/c it was just sex.?

If only divorce lawyers would read this string. They would see dollar signs flashing in front of their eyes.

Of course, the above is not scriptural. I am just shocked as the originator of the thread.


----------

