Posted on 05/04/2021 7:31:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
No, what Scripture says (how did you miss it) is not that two persons of opposite sex automatically become married just because they engaged in sexual relations (which would make many of us polygamous), but instead even before the Law fornication was not marriage,[1] and under the Law such fornicators were required to become married,[2] and Christ taught that the women at the well was not married even though she was living in sin with a man:[3]
[1] And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her...And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob’s daughter; which thing ought not to be done. And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife... (Genesis 34:1-2,7,8) And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out...And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?(Genesis 34:26,31)
[2] And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (Exodus 22:16)
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; 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. (Deuteronomy 22:28-29)
[3]Jesus saith unto her, Go, call thy husband, and come hither. The woman answered and said, I have no husband. Jesus said unto her, Thou hast well said, I have no husband: For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband: in that saidst thou truly. (John 4:16-18)
" Consider that all the ceremony (not celebration and feasting, that’s separate from things like exchanging vows and is much earlier) was added later, and even as late as the Patriarch period we expressly see no ceremony at all with, for example Isaac and Rebekah (in that case not even a celebration is spoken of)."
The celebration and feasting was because there was a social contract taking place, with the community itself being involved. And which is what "yes" to the question "Wilt thou go with this man?" signified, celebration or not.
And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. And they sent away Rebekah their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant, and his men. And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. (Genesis 24:58-60)
Thus your assertions do not stand in the light of comparing Scripture with Scripture, which shows that while "he which is joined to an harlot is one body" (1 Corinthians 6:16) - which make that women a polygamist - yet that is only one aspect of becoming married.
Did you not note the idea as the alternative of adultery?
Did you not note that becoming one flesh applies when those involved are not married? Or at least (because of OT polygamy) when she is not married and is eligible to marry the man?
Or did you note that I did specify the era of the patriarchs to show that ceremonies as a necessary component came later in Israel?
Dinah’s fate is not explicitly settled by Scripture BUT some extra-Biblical Jewish claims, for what that is worth, associate the “Canaanite woman” of 46:10 who was Shaul’s mother with her, making Shaul the son of Shechem raised in Simeon’s house and counted among his sons. If so then she was considered his, Shechem’s, widow to be described that way.
Simeon and Levi you may recall took the lead in vengeance for her treatment, not Reuben who was the oldest brother to all three, and Simeon was older than Levi ... so whatever the truth may be her ending up under Simeon’s protection in his house at least makes sense.
Naturally, the Law addressed and formalized issues that may not have been addressed under the patriarchs ... after all, Simeon and Levi applied a very different standard of justice than Exodus 22 or Deuteronomy 22.
As for what Jesus said, that she had had 5 husbands ... and they were really her husbands ... would mean that she was free to marry numbers 2 through 5 but NOT the sixth. That could be satisfied if she was widowed by 1 through 4, but 5 was still alive ... thus she was an adulterer with the current guy ... and any potential in betweeners betwixt him and her still living husband..
If she were divorced from 1 to 4, or indeed from 5, she would run afoul of the teaching of Luke 16:18, also from Jesus. So she might have been divorced from #5 but that didn’t make her eligible to marry again.
I think my assertion hold up quite well.
Did you not note that what you asserted was that "becoming one flesh, having sex....is always either becoming husband and wife or adultery" and which is contrary to Scripture as shown?
"Did you not note that becoming one flesh applies when those involved are not married? Or at least (because of OT polygamy) when she is not married and is eligible to marry the man?"
No: did you fail to note that becoming one flesh even applies to those who (according to your "one flesh=marriage metric) would have become married due to multiple partners (and do not even try to break the bounds of credulity by arguing the harlot only has relations with married men): "What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." (1 Corinthians 6:16)
"Dinah’s fate is not explicitly settled by Scripture"
The point was and remains that her becoming one flesh/having sex, was not that of becoming a wife, directly contrary to your assertion.
"As for what Jesus said, that she had had 5 husbands ... and they were really her husbands ... would mean that she was free to marry numbers 2 through 5 but NOT the sixth. That could be satisfied if she was widowed by 1 through 4, but 5 was still alive ... thus she was an adulterer with the current guy ... and any potential in betweeners betwixt him and her still living husband.."
No: she became one flesh with the sixth as well, thus was married according to your metric since "two, saith he," shall be one flesh even with a prostitute. .
"I think my assertion hold up quite well."
Rather, it has manifestly failed and which makes you look like one who is forcing the Bible to validate you.
“No: she became one flesh with the sixth as well, thus was married according to your metric since “two, saith he,” shall be one flesh even with a prostitute.”
She was apparently not eligible to marry the sixth. So what they were doing wasn’t resulting in marriage, but adultery. That’s why he was not considered her husband by the Lord.
You’ve been neglecting something I keep saying, or at least trying to imply, and that is they must be eligible to marry for it to become marriage.
Two people not eligible to marry are not going to be considered husband and wife by the Lord no matter how much sex there is.
Marriage happens only where eligibility to marry exist ... that is the thought.
Also, that’s eligibility as was understood at the time. With the patriarchs that is before the Lord gave the Law as I pointed out previously.
But where eligibility to marry is in fact there, then I am arguing that is when they become married in the Lord’s eyes.
Earlier we spoke of Dinah. But there is another victim to consider and unlike Dinah that girl’s expectations about what was going to happen, and her attitude about what had happened are actually indicated.
First let me be absolutely clear, this girl was not, as I understand the Law, eligible to marry the particular jerk that raped her. Rather I’m citing her because, again, we have her opinions preserved.
To start listen to Tamar’s final plea to Amnon: `Because of the circumstances this evil is greater than the other that thou hast done with me — to send me away;’
“This evil” was sending her away after having raped her.
Before Amnon raped Tamar you can see how she, having finally perceived his evil intent, sought to at least rescue what she could for herself from a very bad situation when she said to him: `Nay, my brother, do not humble me, for it is not done so in Israel; do not this folly. And I — whither do I cause my reproach to go? and thou — thou art as one of the fools in Israel; and now, speak, I pray thee, unto the king; for he doth not withhold me from thee.’
Again, I would point out that half-brothers / half-sisters were under the Law no longer recognized as being eligible to marry.
Tamar seems to have weighed her options, decided that what he intended to do to her was worse than the (also bad) option of her father giving her to him, her own half brother, and tried to get him to at least let her have some dignity.
Personally I imagine, though we are not told, that Tamar did finally call out for help, and it went unheeded by Amnon’s servants, and that may have influenced Amnon’s hatred or her ... dude was a total scumbag ... and yet even after he raped her she makes it clear she would have rather not been sent away. Why? Well, what happened to her? That too we know, she lived out her life “desolate”.
Look, we live in a society so polluted that even virgins in our culture are often like Lot’s Sodom-tainted daughters. These seem far, far from being as upright as Tamar given her apparent scruples.
The pollution of the culture blinds people, and blinds them more the worse it becomes in them.
I like to compare this culture to a fetid cesspool that people live in, are used to living in, to the point that many folks imagine such fetid cesspools are just where people live. They can’t imagine better and after a certain point may even be offended by others who don’t want to live in their cesspool.
I also take it as a given that you’re NOT one content to live in the proverbial cesspool!
Where Isaiah recognized that he was a man of unclean lips among a people of unclean lips — which I take to mean nothing more and nothing less than he realized that there were things in his life and society that he thought were okay but he found out, having seen Holiness, weren’t okay in the least, but were simply bad — I kinda get the impression that many people in this society of ours might think they would get a pat on the back for being so nice and tolerant were they to be in Isaiah’s slippers.
Against such a society a little zeal, or perchance over-caution, is in order even if it may invite going too far the other way, being too prudish.
Not that I imagine it will happen. Romans 1:18-32 is apparently going on all over the place in society, and if so then far too many have already refused to retain the knowledge of the Lord.
Which remains refuted regardless of all the gymnastics you attempt to justify your position by. Rather than being married due to sexual relations btwn two persons eligible to marry, it remains that Dinah was not married due to intercourse but both were eligible to marry (but stopped by brothers due to fornication taking place), and under the Law sexual relations btwn two persons eligible to marry means they are required to become married. (Exodus 22:16)
Meanwhile, resorting to reading the women at the well as having buried 4 previous husbands is unwarranted and desperate, being necessitated by you to maintain your unScriptural position. And if becoming one flesh only refers to relations btwn two persons eligible to marry then you are forced to hold that "he which is joined to an harlot is one body...one flesh" (1 Corinthians 6:16) must mean that all her previous relations were with men who were not eligible to marry so that if a Christian engages with her then he would become one flesh=married. What a tangled web you weave, but as you insist on being unreason-able and this thread is dead, then there may not be much warrant to continue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.