↑ ↑ ↑ ↑
See that title?
If you let your emotions rule you, to override your faculties of reason, then stop reading. Go do something else. This post is not for you. You’ve been warned.
In the comment section under “More on Biblical Marriage” a commenter objected to the idea that sex is always marital, that is, it always produces a lifelong one-flesh marital bond.
(This is, of course, why sexual purity is so fundamentally important and why sexual deviance is so deeply destructive.)
To someone who is not married, they are married when they have sex even when that sex is illicit. It’s a matter of cause-and-effect, not a matter of human will. It is soley a matter of the divine will. God, by his will, set up all sorts of similar rules.
For example, if you kill someone, they are dead. Similarly, if you have sex with someone, you are married to them. These are both examples of automatic, existential cause-and-effect: the effect is an obligatory consequence of the cause.
There are many reasons to kill someone, including self-defense or (a good reason), an accident (a neutral reason), and hatred (a bad reason), but the effect is obligatory in all cases: the person is dead. So too with sex. There are many reasons to have sex. Some are good (e.g. marriage) and some are bad (e.g. adultery), but the effect is obligatory in all cases: a one-flesh marital bond.
There are no logically or actually possible exceptions.
What this demonstrates is that the right or wrongness of the cause and the effect are not, of necessity, linked. For example, (1) killing in self-defense is good even when the death outcome is bad. The converse is also true: (2) a death can be a good thing even if the killing is not. There is a famous case of this in the New Testament (hint: the crucifixion). It is also trivial to demonstrate the other two—(3) a bad killing and a bad death; and (4) a good killing and a good death—fully demonstrating the moral independence of the cause from the effect.
So let’s talk about rape and abortion. Should a woman who is raped and becomes pregnant be allowed to abort her child?
The answer is clearly “No.” This is never justified. It is, in fact, murder. Specifically, it is the case where the killing and the death are both bad. That’s the one labeled as “(3)” above.
In modern society, people’s moral compasses are so broken by secular humanism and materalism that they do not find this clear and obvious at all. They see a chain of casuality “Rape → Pregnancy → Baby” and conclude that because the cause (“Rape”) is bad that the effects (“Pregnancy” and “Baby”) must also be bad. This is logically fallacious. It is an example of the “Argument from Consequences.”
But what if we apply this to marriage? Here is a chain of causality: “Rape → Marriage.” Do you conclude that because the cause “Rape” is bad that the effect “Marriage” must also be bad? If so, then you’ll probably be fine with murdering babies. You might even write something like this:
Notice that this—screaming—is all about emotions. There is nothing rational about aborting babies conceived through an act of rape. The baby did nothing to deserve a death sentence. It committed no crime. It is, in fact, completely innocent and deserving of life. The fact that one of his parents was a monster is irrelevant.
But, my, oh my, do modern feminists get all emotional over the right to murder babies conceived through acts of rape. Even though there is no logical reason why being raped (a crime) should necessitate another act of violence (the crime of murdering your own baby), they let their emotions rule the day.
Almost every Christian woman believes that aborting a baby who was conceived through a rape is morally justified. Go ask them to explain themselves and they’ll give you an irrational emotional response, devoid of reason.
The same is true of God’s standards on sexuality. When God says that sex produces a one-flesh bond, he’s completely serious and you should be taking it seriously too. But almost no one, including Christians, takes this seriously for emotional reasons. There exists no rational argument against this statement:
When a man visits a prostitute, he has no intention of being (or staying) married to her and she has no intention of being (or staying) married to him. But in the eyes of God, they are one flesh. Their marriage is as real as if they were two virgins newly consumating their union after a wedding ceremony.
So too when a man rapes a woman, neither of them have any intention of being (or staying) married. But they are married, whether they desire it or not.
So too, a person is currently married to every single person they have ever had sex with (presuming their partners are still alive), even if they never had any intention of being (or staying) married.
Paul makes unabiguously clear that the marriage of Genesis 2:24 applies to “non-marital” sex, not just fully consensual, intentionally marital sex between formally married husbands and wives. These are simple realities, a bit like how anyone that produces sperm is male and anyone who produces eggs is female. You can try to deny it and try to “transform” into something else, but the reality is still the reality regardless of what your feelings tell you.
A male can no more choose to “transform” into a female by warrant of their feelings than a raped woman can choose to be unmarried by warrant of her feelings. Why? Because that’s the way God set it up. You don’t have to like it. You just have to accept it, at least if you want to follow God in more than name only.
Now, before the emotional people in the audience bring out their pitchforks and torches, just because two people are married does not mean they live together. I know that it can be difficult for people who are overwhelmed by their emotions to think rationally, so there is a very good chance that overly emotional people wouldn’t pick up on this rather obvious fact: where you live and who you are married to are not inherently equivalent concepts. After all, if you have an N-count greater than 1, there is a very good chance you are already quite skilled at not living with your spouse(s). So don’t give me ridiculous sob stories like this:
No high N-count woman ever needed to be instructed on how not to live with their husbands, so a raped women won’t have any difficulty figuring out how not to live with her rapist.
I can only imagine that people bring this up this obvious red-herring in order to ad hominem and slur people like me. It’s such a non-issue. No raped woman is ever going to be forced to live with her husband. At the very worst, she’s going to be asked by the church to remain unmarried for life because that’s what the Bible teaches she should do. There are many worse things than dedicating your life to the service of God instead of a husband.
What I do know is that when someone brings up an emotionally-laden red-herring into an argument, it isn’t because they want to engage rationally with the ideas. They want to control the narrative through emotional manipulation. Sorry, that won’t work on this blog.
While I agree with you that your commenter’s self described “emotional reasoning” led to fallacious reasoning and putting words into your mouth, I also think you weren’t fair to her in this sentence:
“I can only imagine that people bring this up this obvious red-herring in order to ad hominem and slur people like me.”
I think it’s more likely that she didn’t really know what your thoughts were on the implications of being married to a rapist since most Christians understand that one is to live with their spouse.
I think it’s more likely that she didn’t really know what your thoughts were on the implications of being married to a rapist since most Christians understand that one is to live with their spouse.
When I said “people” I actually meant the plural people. I wasn’t referring to the commenter specifically. Perhaps your experience has been different, but in my experience when opponents bring up this topic, it is ultimately to tarnish Christians as “rape apologists” (either implicitly or explicitly). This is not a phenomenon specifically attributed to the commenter, but one attributable to a significant portion of the political left.
The argument of “being forced to live with your rapist” is a common trope lobbed against conservative Christians by non-conservatives and non-Christians. It’s also a non-sequitur, an obvious emotionally-driven ad hominem.
I don’t know why the commenter was repeating common tropes. Perhaps your explanation is the correct one. Regardless of the reason, the commenter was acting as if she were no different than those who use it as a slur and ad hominem, even if she was not in actuality. I don’t claim to know, which is why I said “people” instead of “her.”
You may think I was trying to be evasive, but the reality is that I chose my words carefully and meant what I said.
Just curious how this teaching would work. Does contraceptive sex using condoms (so there is no physical contact and fluid exchange) count? Or for that matter, what about the non-coital forms of copulation that are now so popular due to widespread exposure to pornography? Is marriage created by the will and intent (if not consent) to sex or is the correct physical contact of the two and their complementary sex organs necessary? As in, an entirely physical act. If it seems like I’m mocking your teaching with questions, I’m not. Trying to flesh out your idea (pun intended).
I’m not sure what the correct understanding of the dialogue with the Samaritan woman at the well is. Jesus told her the current man she is with isn’t her husband. How do you see this set of verses in John 4.
Is there any sense that one flesh is understood as the act of procreation or merging of genetic material? I can remember several times in the ‘sphere when the topic of telegony was brought up and some research papers were linked.
Another question. Why did historic Protestantism, with it’s sola scriptura and legions of bible scholars miss this? Elspeth once objected to your teaching based on tradition but I’m not sure how a Baptist can defend tradition. Obviously, based on my axioms, the coitus creates marriage thesis is a non-starter for me.
The answer should be apparent. After all, if marrying a virgin requires proof of marriage by an act that breaks the hymen and causes an issue of blood, then the answer to your question is immediately obvious.
Clearly this is not the case.
Paul explicitly stated that the men visiting prostitutes did not know they were becoming one flesh. Marriage happens regardless of whether or not one is aware of it occurring.
Similarly, Jesus said rhetorically “have you not read?” because the Pharisees had read but did not know that marriage is the permanent sexual joining of flesh between a man and woman. Jesus had to inform them of this fact.
Again, this is obviously the case.
Two lesbians and two gay men can never become married—become one flesh—no matter what sexual contact they have. Only a man and a woman can be married.
Thus, knowing how a virgin can be married and knowing how homosexuals cannot be married tells you exactly what marriage is. There is only one thing that is both permissible, possible, and required to create a marriage.
I think your concern is that if other forms of sexual defilement don’t produce a marriage than people can “get away with it.” But no one can “get away with it” when it comes to sin, even if their sin isn’t marriage.
After all, two gay men can do whatever they want without worrying about being forced to marry for life, but they are still defiled. Similarly, if a virgin man and a virgin woman have oral sex, they are not married, but it’s not like they got away with it. So too if a married man and a married woman married to a different man get together and do the same, it’s not like they are suddenly doing a good, fully excusable thing. They are just not married to each other.
This is a fair point.
When I talk about the issue, I’m talking about it from a strictly logical, rational, and grammatically precise theological standpoint. I possess the language required to convey what produces a “one flesh bond” (which I often call “marriage”). This is fine, because it helps keep my explanations unambiguous.
But scripture isn’t written to be a cold treatise on the act of sex. Scripture takes a more practical, inferential, implied, real-life approach to the subject. Jesus didn’t talk like I do, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t believe or express the same thing in different words.
Don’t assume that because I talk a certain way that it is the only way to convey that information. My method serves a specific purpose, but it is not the only way to discuss the subject.
Let’s look at a few different ways to discuss the subject.
Paul is explicit that having sex produces a one-flesh bond whether you want it or not. Jesus is explicit that one has to have a one-flesh bond in order to be forbidden from divorcing. And if you can divorce, you were obviously married to begin with (whether or not it was formalized). The Old and New Testaments are explicit that betrothal counts as being married (even though it obviously isn’t literally a one-flesh bond…yet).
Jesus obviously believed that a one-flesh bond was a marriage, but the term for being married (a husband or wife) was not so precisely stated that being a husband or wife only referred to the one-flesh bond. It also referred to betrothal as well as a formal, but not consummated, marriage. Words have different meanings and uses, and Jesus referred to husbands and wives in different contexts.
In John 4, the word for “husband” is just “man”. Jesus literally said “you have had five men, and he whom you have is not your man” but this is also literally “you have had five husbands, and he whom you have is not your husband” as some translations render it.
Greek and Hebrew didn’t have the problem we have in English, because we have two distinctly separate words for “woman” and “wife.” When Jesus spoke of the Samaritan woman and her “men,” Jesus could convey a wide flavor of meaning that we simply cannot do in English. We are simply not used to letting context determine a woman’s status. We prefer a binary distinction, but scripture doesn’t give us one.
With the Samaritan, she had obviously had sex with multiple men. But she didn’t live with them all. Not living with them means she was divorced. That’s what divorce is: sending or being sent away with no intention of remaining together. When Jesus identified who she didn’t live with, he was by definition identifying who she was divorced from. This is why translations can render the term “husband” without first proving that she had been formally married 5 times (a quite unlikely scenario and one that isn’t explicitly stated). In any case, she was unambiguously one-flesh bonded to six different men.
As for the man she was currently living with, Jesus says it “is not your man” (or, maybe, “is not your husband”). Since they are living together, but not husband and wife, this means (practically) that she must be a prostitute or else he is already a married man and they are committing adultery.
Adultery is, by definition, a one-flesh bond that isn’t a licit marriage. I call this marriage only because it is a one-flesh bond (because it is), not because it is a formally valid marriage (because it isn’t). After adultery they both are and are not husband and wife, just in different senses of the words.
So what do we know about the Samaritan woman? She had sex with six different men and was not formally married to her current sexual partner. Don’t let the English translations fool you into insisting on more than that.
I would say it is this in addition to—but not to the exclusion of—everything above.
I’m sad to hear that.
Also, just so you know, I have a series coming out next week that contains rebuttals to a Roman Catholic apologetics article. You may find that to be a non-starter as well, but I hope you’ll not be too offended.
Jesus and Paul noted that one does not have to know they are one-flesh bonded. It is an invariant established by God himself in Genesis. It happens whether or not you agree and whether or not you even know. It literally does not matter if scholars missed it, just as it didn’t matter when the Pharisees missed it.
But you’ve made an erroneous assumption.
Every time a Christian insists that marriage requires a formal union and condemns every other form of union, he is implicitly supporting sex=marriage. Every single proper marriage is formal and involves sex, and every single improper marriage is condemned. This is true whether you are Roman Catholic or Protestant.
Every non-modern culture that has ever been has understood that a formal marriage that went unconsummated was not a marriage. This is where the idea of annulment vs divorce comes in. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants understand that once a marriage is consummated, it becomes permanent.
All we are really doing is asking why scholars didn’t argue over the exceptions. That, to me, seems quite obvious. It was never a relevant concern for them. Why argue over something that isn’t supposed to ever happen in the first place?
The biggest problem Christians of the past had with illicit sex was adultery and prostitution, and both of these are handled explicitly by scripture (and, in most cases, civil law) without any need for additional clarification about the Act of Marriage. Everyone already knew that prostitution created a one-flesh bond and that adultery should be punished by death. There was no need for scholars to weigh in on an already solved problem.
Similarly, premarital sex was handled with each culture’s equivalent of shotgun weddings. Ancient Hebrews had their version and colonial Americans had theirs. Each culture more-or-less handled the situation the same way. There was no need for scholars to weigh in on an already (mostly) solved problem.
By contrast, the reason we are discussing it here-and-now is because we live in a cultural setting where the question has suddenly become extremely relevant. It isn’t an exception anymore. Having non-marital sex is now the norm.
In ages past, there used to be a whole bunch of things one would say before they ever got anywhere near to “Hey, sex=marriage bro!” But, with the corruption of society and the death of Christian culture, that’s all changed now.
We talk about sex=marriage for the same reason we talk about gay marriage now. It’s not that they were unable to talk about gay marriage in the ancient past, it’s that it made no cultural sense to do so. For example, you’ll never find Cyril of Jerusalem or Augustine weigh in on gay marriage. That’s because there were so many other cultural norms and rules in place such that it never came up. As I’ve argued above, the same is true for sex=marriage. It only makes sense to discuss sex=marriage if you’ve managed—as a society—to formally split the formality of marriage from its consummation. Congratulations modernity!
“Every non-modern culture that has ever been has understood that a formal marriage that went unconsummated was not a marriage. This is where the idea of annulment vs divorce comes in. ”
In the Catholic understanding, consent is required for a valid marriage, consummation is required for indissolubility. Indissolubility is not to be confused with annulment, which is a legal verdict (which provides moral certitude but not absolute certitude) that a valid marriage never took place. An unconsummated marriage is valid (“ratified”) but can be dissolved by the Roman Pontiff for a just reason e.g. by mutual consent to enter religious vows.
Catholics occasionally (rarely I suppose) have a Josephite (“white”) marriage by mutural consent where they don’t consummate their marriage. It is still considered valid.
A Catholic marriage that is valid but not consummated (“ratum non sed consummatum”) is a real marriage according to the Catholic Church.
I’m not aware of any large, historic Protestant group (with its Bible scholars) who taught that coitus = marriage. Not Anglicans, Lutherans, Calvinists, Baptists, Weslyans, etc. I think you may have said that Anabaptists taught this. The sphere discussed an 18th century English clergyman who advocated this idea but was apparently widely mocked.
From this comment, I must conclude that you don’t find my argument logically valid or else you didn’t understand it. Ah, well. I’ll take the L.
I don’t find your argument persuasive.
Even if I read your articles I wouldn’t be offended as I’m in control of my emotions, however I definitely won’t be offended because as a rule I don’t read anti-Catholic apologetics so I won’t be reading your articles. I sometimes decide to respond to individual comments in a thread (as I did to you at Sigma Frame) but I don’t read entire articles that are anti-Catholic from the start.
Pingback: Marriage (An Essay) - Derek L. Ramsey