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?

__________________
~ Charles Stephen Barribeau ~
Christ Presbyterian Church , OPC (They sing alot of Psalms!)
Original Westminster Standards (I need to study more...)
The Puritans were best! Also... I NEED TO READ MORE!!!
Philipians1:29(KJV) For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;

Janesville, Wisconsin (In the fellowship of Bob Vigneault and Matt+Megan Meisberger)

Huh?

__________________
sarah
WI
OPC
My Pastor's Sermons: Mark Jenkins...he's awesome!!!

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

__________________
Casey, Chicagoland, OPC

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

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

__________________
Nancy L./ www.foundersbaptist.org
Spring, TX

Your will, Lord Jesus Christ! Nothing more... nothing less... nothing else.

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?

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

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?

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

__________________
Jake; Hold to Original WCF, member of SBC; Greater Atlanta, Georgia Area

The cross does not give us a minor shift or two with regard to a few of our ethical and moral and religious values; the cross radically disrupts the very center and citadel of your life from self to Christ. —Albert N. Martin

That's a dangerous statement if left unqualified.

__________________
Andrew Thornquist My Photo Album
Calvinistic Baptist
Ukiah, California
To follow Christ was the best decision God made for me!

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

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

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

Can you prove it is a Jewish Law?

Yeah, it's not in the Ten Commandments.

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

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?

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?

__________________
Kathleen M
nondenominational
Montana

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?)

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.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

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....................?

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-----

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.

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?

(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.)

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.

fornication != marriage

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

__________________
Brian Withnell
Deacon, OPC
Leesburg, Virginia

You cannot train for war in the midst of a battle. Prepare before the battle starts; if the battle is long and hard, you will wish you had.

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...

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.

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...

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.

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

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.

If both parties are willing to marry afterwards, they have that choice. The other choice is that the man has to pay a fine, as the man is considered guilty in the case of seduction if the woman isn't engaged or married.

Not sure what's wrong with that. Why shouldn't there be a penalty when it's so destructive to society? Is it heartless or something? Should society encourage it?

__________________
Tim Vaughan
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian, OPC,
Santa Maria
California

Fast moving thread. You are right, I'm not a reconstructionist in any sense. If you see my later reply, you might get that I do believe in repentance being not just something we do internally, but that we do right by what we have promised.

By the way, I think this works both ways. If a woman seduces a man with the promise of love, then I think repentance on her part might include forsaking all others as well.

Some of the OT law was civil, and the equity was to assure the woman would not be left destitute because she would likely not be able to marry (she was no longer a virgin) and would be without someone to provide (ancient world before the advent of Christianity did not look favorably upon a single woman trying to make it on her own).

Why is it all the man's fault? So he tells the girl he loves her to get her into bed. The girl is just as responsible for having sex with him. If he then repents and doesn't want to marry her bc he just doesn't why should he have to marry her? So she has her heart broken....teaches her to not to sin anymore....right?

-----Added 8/2/2009 at 11:01:41 EST-----

women are not these delicate flowers that need cuddling...they are just as depraved as men and need to be held responsible for their actions. If two ppl have sex and want to get married then they need to confess their sins and hurry up and get married. If they don't want to get married then they need to separate themselves from each other and repent and move on.

Sarah,

If the man is to repent, then should his repentance cause pain in someone else? While I agree in principle that it isn't just the man's fault, in practice I've only seen a very few cases where a woman just uses a man for sex and dumps them. More often, a man is using every emotional tug in the book to get what he wants. What does his repenting look like? I think that if you steal something from someone, that repenting means you pay them back. If a man seduces a woman, how does he pay the debt to her? If it were the promise of love that he used to obtain the object of his lust, then the promise of love must be fulfilled if he is to repent of that particular part of the sin.

It isn't very repentant of a man to use a woman, then say he repents and do nothing for the woman other than what he would do to her if he were unrepentant. Repentance has a practical side to it not just a spiritual side. What I see a lot of in the church today is the "spiritual" side of repentance the only side of repentance being shown. That just isn't right.

Yes, several OT saints had more than one wife. That however is descriptive and not prescriptive, just like their sins which are also recorded. It is important to note the context of those relationships. Certain polygamist relationships helped lead to sin (consider Solomon's idolatry) and the polygamist relationships of Abraham, Jacob, and David were not preferable and in fact for Jacob and David came about in times of spiritual lacking, not times of seeking for the glory of God.

Besides, using the description of David being "after God's own heart" as an implied support of David's polygamist actions is a pretty irresponsible thing to do because you are quite literally implying that God would be open to taking more than one bride for himself. Yes, David was a man after God's own heart, but he was a man nonetheless. He sinned. He was fallible. Just because he was a man after God's own heart does not mean that all his actions, including polygamy, were proper.

While monogamy may not be as slap-you-in-da-face obvious as "don't be a drunk" in the Scriptures, it is important to consider what was meant by a man and a woman becoming one flesh. Couple that with Ephesians 5:22-33 and show me where there is any room for polygamy. A man and a woman are to model Christ and the church. There is only one church, isn't there?

I see your point ... if it was two ppl looking at each other and jumping into bed because of mutual lust, then I agree with your assessment. But that isn't the scenario I painted.

I'm all for one man-one woman...and wouldn't want it any other way. But why didn't God reprimand Abraham, Jacob, David etc for having more than one wife?

This is quite like ancient Israel being polytheistic prior to the Babylonian captivity. Prior to deportation, Israel and Judea were practicing polytheistic states. They did worship more than one God all the time. It isn't that they were not told to have not other Gods, but that they refused to listen to the command. That was with clear teaching (how do you foul up "no other gods before me"?) The teaching of one man, one wife is much more subtle ... God instituted marriage by one man and one woman.

I'm not even talking about lust. Even if a man was lusting and a woman was in love that's no excuse. She is just as responsible for her actions of sin as he is of his. Their actions might stem from different reasons but they ended in sin and both come from a depraved heart. It's her fault for trusting him and not following God's law that's what she gets. He owes her nothing except an apology for sinning against her and her against him but mostly against God.

The most logical conclusion I know is that it is like the case of divorce, which was permitted for a time because of the hardness of man's heart, "but it was not so from the beginning." (Matt. 19:4-8)