Is this person married? If not then why?

[charliejunfan]

Hi

I have searched puritanboard on this precise topic and have not found it, so I would like to ask all of you about it.

I was wondering if sexual union before marriage equals marriage today or if a "virgin price" need still be offered to those woman's fathers.

Also, what if the women who was fornicated with was not a Christian and the guy was or vice versa?

 

[OPC'n]

Huh?

 

[Casey]

Pre-marital sex does not require two people to marry, nor does it constitute a marriage.

 

[charliejunfan]

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

 

[christiana]

Pre-marital sex constitutes sin.
Actually any sex outside marraige constitutes sin.

 

[charliejunfan]

Yes I know! but does it mean that the two are bound by their unlawful union like it used to, and if not then why not?

 

[OPC'n]

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

Oh, get it now. We are not in the OT now.

 

[charliejunfan]

What? didn't the Laws in the Old Testament require that if two people fornicated they either were considered bound to each other or the guy could pay the father for release from that?

 

[Jake]

I think the question is (I may be wrong) does having sex make a marriage bond in the eyes of God?

 

[AThornquist]

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

Oh, get it now. We are not in the OT now.

That's a dangerous statement if left unqualified.

 

[OPC'n]

No! Otherwise, those who commit adultery would have to have two or three or.... wives!

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 09:35:55 EST-----

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

Oh, get it now. We are not in the OT now.

That's a dangerous statement if left unqualified.

Not all OT laws pertain to us. This is not a moral law. This is a Jewish law.

 

[charliejunfan]

Can you prove it is a Jewish Law?

 

[OPC'n]

Yeah, it's not in the Ten Commandments.

 

[charliejunfan]

Sexual sin is though, and marriage is definitely a Creation Law hence moral so.....

 

[OPC'n]

yeah but not how you acquire a wife. When two believers have sex it's most likely that they are wanting to get married anyway and just couldn't wait but they will get married...they sinned and will be forgiven...so that's not even an issue....now, if i were to be so stupid as to go have sex with someone who was married would i then be bound to that man and have to become his wife?

 

[Montanablue]

Charlie, I think that there are many other people on the board who are far better qualified to deal with this question than I am, so I won't voice my opinion in much depth. I believe that we are only required to follow the Ten Commandments although I certainly think studying OT law can be helpful when thinking about Christian living and how we can best honor God in our daily walk.

I do think its important to think through the ramifications of your statement all the way through. If you hold to this, then you also have to consider the issue of rape. Should a woman who is raped have to marry her rapist?

 

[charliejunfan]

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?)

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Sex doesn't create a marriage. It is activity meant exclusively for a marriage.

Marriage is a public covenant. It may not be THAT public, but it is witnessed, even outside the law. At least your social circle recognizes your vows. The whole purpose for a marriage declaration (whatever they call it!) is to settle this status legally for all interested, regardless of what they thought of you before.

Problems are created/exacerbated when people flout conventions. Selfish brats complicate society, because they think everything revloves around them, and they can make up the rules as they go along. And then they want the benefits of stable society when it suits them.

Oh well. Sometimes we just have to put up with nonsense for a time. But no one says that people who aren't married in some fashion before the law (of the land) have to be recognized as such, just because they say so, or because they slept together.

 

[OPC'n]

Thank you for your responses Sarah

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.

you're welcome Charlie! I was trying to exaggerate in order to make a point. Why do you think God allowed David etc to have more than one wife? and the NT says that elders can only have one wife alluding to the fact that others may have more....................?

 

[AThornquist]

I do think its important to think through the ramifications of your statement all the way through. If you hold to this, then you also have to consider the issue of rape. Should a woman who is raped have to marry her rapist?

This isn't a valid comparison though. Willful sex is treated differently than rape. The treatment of people in an adulterous relationship is also different.

From Deuteronomy 22:

22 “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 10:04:36 EST-----

and the NT says that elders can only have one wife alluding to the fact that others may have more....................?

Uhm, no, it does not allude to the fact that others may have more. With that sort of hermeneutic you could say that since they have to be "not a drunkard" that alludes to the fact that others were allowed to be drunkards.

 

[charliejunfan]

Verse for my question-

Deuteronomy22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

A rephrasing of the question-

Has this been Abrogated by Christ in the NT and if so, why?

I am pretty sure this is ceremonial law so it IS abrogated, am I wrong?

 

[AThornquist]

(Sarah, just because I don't like leaving a point open ended, I would very briefly suggest that "to be a one woman man" speaks of the requirement of sexual purity, which would include the necessity of monogamy and sexual relations with her only. This purity is commanded of all men, not just elders; however, if a man does not meet this qualification, he is not fit to be an elder.)

 

[OPC'n]

I do think its important to think through the ramifications of your statement all the way through. If you hold to this, then you also have to consider the issue of rape. Should a woman who is raped have to marry her rapist?

This isn't a valid comparison though. Willful sex is treated differently than rape. The treatment of people in an adulterous relationship is also different.

From Deuteronomy 22:

22 “If a man is found lying with the wife of another man, both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.

23 “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones, the young woman because she did not cry for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor's wife. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.

25 “But if in the open country a man meets a young woman who is betrothed, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. 26 But you shall do nothing to the young woman; she has committed no offense punishable by death. For this case is like that of a man attacking and murdering his neighbor, 27 because he met her in the open country, and though the betrothed young woman cried for help there was no one to rescue her.

28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 10:04:36 EST-----

and the NT says that elders can only have one wife alluding to the fact that others may have more....................?

Uhm, no, it does not allude to the fact that others may have more. With that sort of hermeneutic you could say that since they have to be "not a drunkard" that alludes to the fact that others were allowed to be drunkards.

By the very fact that OT saints had more than one wife....like David the man after God's own heart

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 10:24:08 EST-----

the bible specifically says not to be a drunkard but it doesn't say not to have more than one wife.

 

[Brian Withnell]

Hi

I have searched puritanboard on this precise topic and have not found it, so I would like to ask all of you about it.

I was wondering if sexual union before marriage equals marriage today or if a "virgin price" need still be offered to those woman's fathers.

Also, what if the women who was fornicated with was not a Christian and the guy was or vice versa?

fornication != marriage

Marriage is the joining of two by vows, not the joining of flesh by lust.

 

[charliejunfan]

Deuteronamy22:28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days.


OK

Let me explain, I am not asking if or claiming that anyone was ever married by sexual union, I am asking if sexual union OUTSIDE of marriage still requires the man to take the women as his wife forever.

Like I posted earlier I think I know the answer which is NO because of that law being ceremonial and abrogated in Christ.

I would like to see other opinions on this though if there are any...

 

[OPC'n]

lol! We have! The answer is NO! That is a Jewish law! Otherwise, many ppl would be married to many different ppl! If you fornicate then you need to repent not necessarily get married.

 

[charliejunfan]

I agree with you for now Sarah because of it being a ceremonial law, but now I want to see if any others would contend that this is moral somehow and is still binding.

Maybe a reconstructionist would say it's still binding IDK...

 

[Brian Withnell]

But no one says that people who aren't married in some fashion before the law (of the land) have to be recognized as such, just because they say so, or because they slept together.

Though some states recognize common law marriage (that is, if two people life together and act as through they are married, then they are married without ceremony), it is not recognized by all states. But even in those states that do recognize common law marriage, they do not equate sex to marriage. There has to be an establishment of a common home, a common name, the acting out of being husband and wife, witnesses to that effect (if someone introduces a woman as his wife and the woman acknowledges the man as her husband is what is in view here). Common law marriage is not very common, but it exists.

 

[charliejunfan]

Brian,

As I hope you have seen, above I restated my question to make it more understandable, maybe you know a way in which this law could still be binding, I highly doubt you are a reconstructionist or anything else like that though...lol

 

[Brian Withnell]

I am asking if sexual union OUTSIDE of marriage still requires the man to take the women as his wife forever.
...
I would like to see other opinions on this though if there are any...

Let's make this personal. Suppose you are not married, you tell some young woman that you love her (because you want to have sex with her). You get her into bed through seduction.

What does repentance look like on your part? One, that you make every effort to not fornicate yet again. But what about the sin against the young woman? You promised love and affection and took sex. Suppose the woman was thinking that you mean what I tell my son, "Don't say to a woman 'I love you' unless it is part of asking the question 'I love you, will you marry me?'." If she was thinking that, and she is seduced by what she thinks is a promise of marriage, and then you "repent" of the sex, but not of the sin of using her, then you have not repented. What does repentance of seduction of a virgin woman look like? To me, it would look like making the commitment, never to be broken, that was promised.