Categories of unmarried non-virgins in Scripture....

Tim and I usually refrain from placing answers to questions raised in comments to our posts on the main page of this blog, preferring the give and take of the comment section for such interaction. But questions posed by a reader in a recent comment anticipated a post I was planning and for that reason I place my answer here as well....

Objections to my previous post defining marriage as a covenantal commitment leading to one-flesh union have centered on my contention that Scripture defines marriage objectively as hinging upon the one-flesh union of a man and woman.

I believe the onus is on those who object not only to provide an alternative definition of marriage from Scripture, but also to find a category of sexual sin in Scripture corresponding to our modern category of "pre-marital sex." Without such a biblical category of sin, the position that routine sexual activity can take place between unmarried men and women without constituting marriage is indefensible.

The problem for this view is that such a category of sin cannot be found in Scripture. Biblically, an unmarried Jewish woman who was no longer a virgin was either:

1) the victim of rape (Deut. 22:25-27)

2) a virgin seduced by a man (Deut. 22:29-29, Ex. 22:16-17)

3) a harlot (Deut. 22:21)

4) adulterous (Deut. 22:23-24)

5) a slave--or concubine (Ex. 21:7-11).

In the case of rape, the rapist was to die. This assumed, of course, resistance, thus the caveat about rape in the country.

In the case of a virgin seduced by a man, unless the father objected the man was to pay the bride price and the woman was his wife.

In the case of a harlot in the house of her father, the penalty was death.

In the case of the adulterous woman (a woman betrothed who was unfaithful to her vows) the penalty was death.

In the case of the slave deflowered by her master, her owner could either, a) continue with her as his wife, or; b) set her free without payment of money.

I encourage those who view sexual union as incidental to the establishment of marriage in the eyes of God to search for the category of non-virgin, unmarried, sexually active, non-prostitute, non-slave woman they think exists in Scripture (and in life today). I'm afraid such a category can't be found within the pages of Scripture. Though our modern view of sexual behaviour assumes the existence of a large middle ground between harlotry and virginity, the Bible knows no such distinction.

I am not denying that marriage is more than sexual union. A covenant is first and foremost an agreement. But, Scripturally speaking, the necessary level of precision, clarity and formality of agreement at the heart of a valid marital covenant is very, very low--no doubt, because of the generally high view of marriage in Biblical times. You don't have to spend much time defining what is universally understood. Consider, just for two examples, the marriages of Isaac to Rebecca and Jacob to Leah and the minimal level of covenantal agreement prior to the act of sexual union in both marriages....

The truth is, Scripture reveals that engaging in the act of sexual union was routinely understood as a covenantal act by the men and women of Biblical times. The formation of the covenant didn't even require specific words, the act was so strongly tied to the covenantal establishment of marriage.

Yet even were the Bible to describe marriage as the product of a public vow rather than a covenant (something it never does), the necessity of sexual union to enact the vow would be present in Scripture's definition of marriage as a one-flesh union.

But in describing marriage as the product of a covenant, the two components are brought together: mutual agreement and the marital act of union.

Though I hope this helps make Scripture's teaching on marriage clearer to some, I recognize that to many the idea of sexual union initiating a husband-wife relationship is anathema. I don't think it's a high view of marriage that leads to this attitude, rather, a low view of virginity, sexual union and the consequences of sexual behaviour. The result of societal decay has been the willingness even of many Christians to separate physical union from the covenant of marriage.

In a day which does not connect sexual union to marriage it is clearly unwise to attach marital intentions to every act of sexual union. But among children of the Church, children taught the Law of God, ignorance of the covenantal significance of sexual union cannot be claimed. Our children, if they have been taught God's Word, know what they are doing when they engage in sexual union. They know that this is the act of marriage and must thus be held accountable for sinning against knowledge rather than in ignorance in this important area.