It’s been a generally accepted tenet over time, even in Scripture, that marriage is the only arena where sex is to take place and be pleasing before God.
The current proclivity of women (even Christian women) to ride the carousel, being an independent and empowered woman who enjoys career, traveling, and other experiences with that hot guy, it is a definite concern of Christian men. To be sure that they select suitable wives for themselves, considering a woman’s sexual partner count is important.
Fortunately, we have TRing and her Personal Jesus to set us straight and tell us all that we should man up and marry the sluts because we’re not exhibiting God’s grace:
What have you to say about women (and men for that matter) who get saved later on in life, having gone through somewhat salacious existences? Yes, Christ’s redemption is sufficient but he can and does open the doors of marriage for his children, regardless of their past. To imply otherwise would bring the focus on us – where is God’s sovereignty and grace in all of this thinking?
Naturally, her Personal Jesus would not have any worldly consequences befall her or any woman. When a woman is regenerated (her word), her Personal Jesus makes her into a born-again virgin. The concept was introduced in order to justify it in the minds of the women and make her an equivalent to the women who actually have been following God in respect to sexuality. After all, the Christian woman slut and the Christian woman virgin have both been cleansed by the blood and the slut has been completely absolved of her sins and washed white as snow. Therefore, she is just as virgin as the other woman and therefore men are required to treat the slut as if she has never had sex and think of her in that way. TRing confirms it herself:
No. Let’s not idolise physical “purity” – For after having met a few people recently (virgins brought up in Christian homes) I have concluded that indeed it goes much farther beyond virginity.
But life doesn’t work as TRing would have it. TRing would have women be absolved of all of the things they’ve done in the minds of others, both eternally and in the world. In TRing’s world, murderers would be free of jail time, because God “forgave them”! Men are to not mind whether women are virgins or whether they’ve slept with 50 men. Women are to have the exact husbands of their dreams, and any man she deems fit is to immediately give himself to marriage with her, despite whether she is worthy enough for him or not. The act of Christian men following out God’s will in their lives becomes idolatry in the mind of the High Holy Hamster that is her Personal Jesus!
Furthermore, her Personal Jesus distorts the entire message that we write, as well as the Scriptures, by decoupling fornication as any consideration with marriage:
After having read a few times that women who have fornicated cannot go on to get married, I wish someone would give a biblical basis for coming to that conclusion. Fornication does not equal marriage!
What has been said is not that sluts can’t get married, it’s that they should fall on their knees in thankfulness that any man would extend them the grace to be married despite being far from worthy or suitable. In other words, there are a number of men that may not want a woman that’s been around as much as her. But to address the issue: Does partner count matter to God? As it is written:
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s. (1 Corinthians 6:15-19)
Why would Paul write this way if sex didn’t matter in the ability to unify two into one flesh? The concept repeats itself to the point that it should be clearly understood: Marriage is the only good and godly platform for sex, because it restricts this bonding to a single pair. When a woman bonds to others again and again, only for that bond to be torn, it becomes harder for her to bond to a husband as she properly should. After a number of partners, or just one man who makes her an Alpha Widow, it becomes next to impossible for a woman to function properly as a wife. This is shown well in studies: The risk of divorce is directly correlated to the number of sexual partners the woman has had. So it seems in prohibiting sex outside of the marriage bed, God had things pretty right, didn’t He?
But in the mind of TRing’s Personal Jesus, He is very wrong. By the end of her comment, the truth finally comes out:
Your arguments are not only hurtful but unfounded, expunged solely from your carnal minds. You remind me of the Galatians who insisted on circumcision of the flesh, on your own works and precepts forgetting what Jesus had done for us: the circumcision of the heart.
Given her small back story, it seems the only offense TRing has taken is that being confronted with God’s holy truth regarding fornication makes her feel bad. This is the real sin in her mind: Her Personal Jesus has been affronted. Her High Holy Hamster has been challenged. Naturally, we are carnally minded when we care about such things as honoring God’s truth with a view towards His ultimate holiness. According to TRing’s Personal Jesus, Jesus came to abolish the Law, and not fulfill it. The truth is if we are given grace by the cross for our sins, we need to leave them there.
While a woman who has rode the carousel can be extended grace by a man to be considered as a wife, it really is his choice to do so. The entitlement mentality of Churchian women can not allow men a choice in who they marry. To do otherwise would lay bare to everyone the fact that the Book of Oprah is false. Nothing can invalidate The Narrative, and it must be preserved at all costs.
Honor God, not the Personal Jesus.
Ballista74's Blog 
Typical churchian evanjellyfish feminazi.
Slut.
LikeLike
BTW, I always wonder how these twits find posts that are two years old; they must go looking for them deliberately, is all I can think.
Why?
LikeLike
@WillS Probably searching or discussions in places. That particular post is by and far the one that receives the most hits on this blog. It’s #2 over the last 30 days, and triples up the next post here, looking at the all time stats.
LikeLike
Great post ballista. Not cruel but at the same time it doesn’t pull any punches.
LikeLike
Acts 15:19-20 is interesting in this light as well. Note fornication was included in that letter, which seems to make it a “low-bar” issue, given all the others written about in the New Testament Epistles.
LikeLike
It would be one thing if it were only new converts among women who had this issue; the real problem is women who profess to be Christoans while silmuntaneously riding the carousel, and who then feel entitled to change lanes whenever they choose, all while being continuously extolled within the church for their alleged virtue.
LikeLike
@ Ballista
The Greek word used in Acts 15 would have been porneia, which included more than just fornication. It would have also included illicit marriages/unions as well (such as were decried in 1 Cor 5:1). Gentiles were to abstain from ALL sexual immorality. Almost makes it seem like it was kind of important, ya know?
LikeLike
Excellent post, Ballista.
okra is right that long-time Christian women who ride the carousel are problems. What strikes me, though, is that this same message has to be repeated over and over again. We are losing the narrative here; the predominating message is “I can do whatever I want. I can fornicate with sexy men; then when I’m ready to marry, I’m entitled to a white wedding. And YOU CAN’T JUDGE ME.”
LikeLike
Another takeaway here that you always hear Christian women say, and especially new converts, is:
“female salvation = fitness for marriage and motherhood”
This is the message TRing is selling: “I used to be bad, but now I’m saved. Therefore, I am automatically a good wife and mother, because I accepted Jesus into my heart.”
Um, no. The simple fact of a woman’s salvation is NOT by itself indicative of good wife material.
LikeLike
This is a good post, I agree wholeheartedly. I would just like to add that all this applies to men as well, should they be careless and not live chastely themselves.
LikeLike
@ Deti
This is really important right here mate. I’m working on a satire post on what men should look for in a “Real Woman” right now, but I’m also working (slowly) on a serious one. And wisdom, or sensibility, is key among the traits a woman is supposed to posses to make a good wife (not to mention chastity is also important). And a woman who was promiscuous for a while has demonstrated a supreme lack of wisdom/sensibility. Hence, until she demonstrates some fruits of wisdom/sensibility, she is not marriageable simply because she is now “saved.”
@ FBNF
True, but Christian women aren’t pushed to marry men who used to be cads like men are pushed to marry Christian women who used to be harlots.
LikeLike
I believe we should make a distinction here between a new convert who never professed to be a Christian and live an immoral lifestyle, and the woman who has professed to be a Christian all along while riding the carousel. The new convert may well be sincere, and in time may prove herself worthy by living a chaste, godly lifestyle; the “Christian” woman who knowingly, rebelliously gave herself over to Satan is unlikely to ever be salvageable as a wife. After all, if she willfully rebels against God, how can she ever be expected to submit to a mere man?
LikeLike
Wintery Knight: Woman who had sex with 18 different men shocked that men don’t want to marry her
LikeLike
@ Donal,
Also true, but I’ve noticed that quite a few manospherian men will go on and on about female chastity, when many of those men proudly flaunt their own lack of virginity. Most don’t want to admit that they also become less marriage worthy by doing the male version of slutting it up, then think they deserve to snag a young virgin girl when they decide they want to get married later in life. I just wanted to point out that male chastity is just as important in God’s eyes as female chastity is, since most around these parts conviently like to overlook that or downplay it.
LikeLike
@fbnf
Were the oft-cited examples of chastity (or the lack thereof) in Proverbs pertain to males or females?
There is also a need to discern if those comments were from Christian or secular men.
LikeLike
Interesting thread here…
The importance of the BRIDE’S virginity is shown clearly in many places in the Bible. My favourite is found in Duet.22:13-21
13 “If any man takes a wife, and goes in to her, and detests her, 14 and charges her with shameful conduct, and brings a bad name on her, and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin,’ 15 then the father and mother of the young woman shall take and bring out the evidence of the young woman’s virginity to the elders of the city at the gate. 16 And the young woman’s father shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man as wife, and he detests her. 17 Now he has charged her with shameful conduct, saying, “I found your daughter was not a virgin,” and yet these are the evidences of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take that man and punish him; 19 and they shall fine him one hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name on a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife; he cannot divorce her all his days.
20 “But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
A lot has been said about bonding etc etc, but note that the GROOM’S virginity is not mentioned anywhere. In the above example the groom probably paid a dowry for his virgin bride [as per Exod.22:17] and if you paid for a virgin you should get a virgin.
Girls who have fornicated prior to conversion should consider that being born again [or regenerated] doesn’t change your sexual history, it does give a seal for future salvation but it doesn’t automatically mean you are marriage material. What is certain is that we all reap what we have sown. Sexual promiscuity prior to marriage will most likely reap a harvest during marriage. I have seen this in my own life and in countless others. The permanence of marriage should be ‘brick-wall’ to arrest this behaviour, but now thanks to our current army of divorce apologists [white knights from hell] we just keep recycling divorcees in thinly veiled adultery.
If your interested please have a look at: Once Married Always Married http://oncemarried.net
LikeLike
@chokingonredpills, @Don Quixote Great comments.
Actually if you go on that first “study” link I gave, it points out the divorce risk is only correlated to the number of partners that the woman has had. They found no correlation based on the number of partners the man has had.
LikeLike
” In other words, there are a number of men that may not want a woman that’s been around as much as her.”
I agree. When I was looking for a wife, knowing she had multiple people she slept with I didn’t take lightly. I’ve been thinking along the same lines. I believe sex isn’t just sex, sex gives away a part of you. A part of you that can’t be taken back. Honestly who has ever forgotten their first one. Unfortunately I know my wife hasn’t and sadly she is the only woman I’ve known. Bonding with her is difficult overall since she has had sex with more than one person. Figuratively speaking I have to fight hell and high water to bond with her on a level that should have existed when I said I do.
Just a thought: Should this go both ways? For both men and women?
LikeLike
FBNF:
yes, male chastity is just as important as female chastity in God’s eyes.
In the natural, it plays out different. A woman who was unchaste before marriage will have a much more difficult time bonding to her husband sexually and has a much, much higher divorce risk. There’s no sense railing against this, it just is.
Premarital sex for men doesn’t affect men in the same way. Men who were unchaste before marriage don’t tend to have problems bonding to a wife the same way an unchaste woman has bonding to her husband. An unchaste man’s problems are in his relationship to God, not to the women in his life. Even a Christian woman will be more accepting of a man’s prior sexual history. Preselection and all that. (Christian women are subject to the same attraction triggers as nonChristian women are.)
With regard to intersexual relationships, a woman’s promiscuity is much, much more deleterious than a man’s promiscuity is. Again: no sense complaining about it. It is what it is. Better to know it and understand it than to wish it weren’t so.
LikeLike
SODW:
What you’ve written about (a woman who fornicated pre-marriage) is common. And yes, premarriage fornication really hinders a woman’s bonding.
What I’m about to say might be quite difficult for you to hear. I am not saying this is true of you and your wife, but it is true of many, many women who fornicated before marriage.
The poor bonding has two causes. First, when a woman has sex with a man, bonding happens. That bonding happens every time she has sex with a new man. When they break up or stop having sex, the bond is broken. The bonding and breaking is the problem. My theory is that a woman develops defenses over time to the constant bonding and breaking, and the prime defense is reduced bonding or an inability to bond.
There is also the tendency of some women to use sex as a tool or weapon — to get what they want, or to wield it as a sword or shield.
The second cause of poor bonding is that usually, the pre-marriage fornicating woman has had sex with more attractive men than the man she married. By the time she gets to marriage, she has already had sex with the men who really turned her on. The man who ultimately agrees to marry her is likely less attractive than the prior men. If one of those prior men had offered marriage, she’d likely have accepted.
On marriage, she believes she has had to “settle” for a less attractive man; and she is, well, angry, hurt, and resentful about it. She believes that because she was able to get sex from those attractive men, she should have been able to get commitment and marriage from at least one of them. Her failure to do so triggers anger, hurt, and resentment. It’s toxic, really.
LikeLike
@Deti
Not difficult to hear. I’ve been thinking about this issue and Ballista’s post has brought it to light.
My theory is that a woman develops defenses over time to the constant bonding and breaking, and the prime defense is reduced bonding or an inability to bond.
This could go ways in my theory but the affects slide more towards women since it’s out there. I posted my thoughts about this on my own blog.
LikeLike
SODW:
I read your post on “Sleeping YourSelf Away” at your blog. I can’t take the discussion over there for a few reasons, but I want to tell you: Your marriage is in serious trouble. You need to address her conduct now. First thing I’d tell her is no more past boyfriends. No contact with them. No texting, no emailing, no social media friendships. She gets rid of all mementos of those men.
Second: Do not under any circumstances have a child with this woman. DO NOT GET HER PREGNANT.
Third: Tell her you know exactly what is going on. She is attracted to other men more than she is attracted to you, and you know it’s not the way a married couple should be.
Fourth: Detach from her. Go about your life. Have (protected) sex with her. Approach her for sex, but do not make her the center of your life.
Fifth: Do not beg for attention or intimacy with her. If she rebuffs you, walk away.
LikeLike
@ Deti,
I know, I wasn’t arguing the point of how important a woman’s chastity is for a good marriage, or complaining about it. I fully agree with it and wish more people out there knew it. I just think we shouldn’t forget that sin has consequences for all of us, no exceptions. This includes men and fornication. Maybe not the same affect as a woman’s, but something equal under God. Though I don’t know what that consequence is for men. But it exists anyway because God is not a respecter of persons, we all face consequences for our choices. I don’t want men to take that lightly.
Also, I don’t agree that a man’s sexual history is attractive. Why people keep saying that baffles me.
LikeLike
@deti
That was almost seven years ago and I’m married.
LikeLike
Already dropped the hammer on everything. We are fine. Did this way before we got married.
LikeLike
Please don’t take me as a fool. I hammered a lot of this crap out before we got married. She doesn’t contact them anymore. I would have walked a long time ago.
LikeLike
“Also, I don’t agree that a man’s sexual history is attractive. Why people keep saying that baffles me.”
For many women, the fact that a man has been able to attract other attractive women is a powerful attractant in and of itself. The fact that a man who has been with other women is now interested in this one woman, speaks well of this woman — she must be attractive if this attractive man is interested in her.
Second, a man who has experience with women is more likely to be able to attract and hold the interest of a woman, and be able to handle the relationship issues.
Third, even if it’s not a positve for most women (even Christian women), it at least will not be a negative.
LikeLike
SODW:
Ok, but i read the post over at your blog. You write in the present tense as if the problems you wrote of are current issues, not long-resolved ones. Fair enough.
Be well, SODW.
LikeLike
@deti
Sorry about that. Something I can work on as a writer.
LikeLike
Deti said:
“The second cause of poor bonding is that usually, the pre-marriage fornicating woman has had sex with more attractive men than the man she married. By the time she gets to marriage, she has already had sex with the men who really turned her on. The man who ultimately agrees to marry her is likely less attractive than the prior men. ”
Exactly!
This is a very common problem, but don’t just take Deti’s words for it, listen to what the late Amy Winehouse had to say concerning this very point. Its in the second verse of this song:
Here is the text of what she says:
I cheated myself
Like I knew I would
I told you I was trouble
You know that I’m no good
[Verse 2]
Upstairs in bed with my ex boy
He’s in the place but I can’t get joy
Thinking on you in the final throes
LikeLike
This sad fact is understood but rarely explained in churches or christian circles. Amy Winehouse was no doubt sexually bonded to a man that wasn’t interested in her. This sad fact is echoed in millions of dysfunctional marriages, and millions more divorcees.
LikeLike
It’s something that’s been written about (and depicted) over and over for a very long time. Gone With the Wind (post pending about it sometime) was about it. I posted a passage from the Godfather book about it:
This was commonly accepted knowledge, as much as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west until the modern feminists have successfully gotten it out of mainstream consciousness to where it could be considered “red pill truth” now.
LikeLike
Then to add to it, with the attitude of Christian women to make Jesus their husband or boyfriend, Christian men get the added hang-up of most (even virgin) Christian women coming to them as an Alpha Widow.
LikeLike
“[Lucy Mancini] missed him for the more important reason that he had been the only man in the world who could make her body achieve the act of love. And, in her youth and innocence, she still believed that he was the only man who could possibly do so.”
A good description of an alpha widow.
I see this in college and at college reunions. I’ve been to a couple of those reunions. I’ve seen the old boyfriends and girlfriends get around each other. Middle aged women married 15+ years to other men, giggling like schoolgirls around their paunchy, sagging college boyfriends. Those same men getting sparkles in their eyes and springs in their steps around these women who have been the lovers of still other men; and who have borne children to other men.
These are people who should have stayed together. They are still sexually bonded to each other, though they consciously do not know it.
LikeLike
that women who have fornicated cannot go on to get married
Heck, they aspire to marriage after they have had their fill of the bad-boy – although their backslides don’t count since they were on vacation. Don’t get me wrong – I love women, especially all of the flips and gyrations they do to argue to themselves that it’s okay that they have sex with someone in a band because they want to, and their husband or boyfriend isn’t there. Heck, I wouldn’t have it any other way – of course, I’ll never marry one of them – been the guy they cheat with too often to ever make that mistake. If other men had experienced half of the things I have, they wouldn’t either – ignorance is bliss for them. Me? I’ll enjoy everything I can get from the ladies – on MY terms, which is just the way they like it. Well, usually..
I’m at a conference, and have my conference wedding ring on as bait for the married women and college cuties in relationships. Works like a charm… Women are so predictable… They hate being alone, so if you offer them “company” they will offer you whatever you want… You just have to understand they want the same thing you do – sex with no strings attached, they just need to feel that it’s OK for them to do it and you don’t think they are a slut for f**king you. Can’t have them feel bad about spreading their legs – they need to feel justified. After all, if her boyfriend was here, she wouldn’t be out with me, so it’s not like it’s cheating since he isn’t here. He has no one to blame but himself… So anyone that agrees with her and tells her it’s OK, that is what they all want to hear…
But hey, you don’t have to believe me. You’ll learn for yourself one day…
LikeLike
@ballista74: Thanks.
@fbnf:
“Maybe not the same affect as a woman’s, but something equal under God. Though I don’t know what that consequence is for men. But it exists anyway because God is not a respecter of persons, we all face consequences for our choices. I don’t want men to take that lightly.”
Don Quixote has shared an example with us about how women who fornicate should be punished in the OT. God judges us for our sins and we are all to be punished. But the consequences of sexual sin (or immorality) are different for both genders because we are made and wired differently. Have you considered why the consequences and punishment for women who fornicate are emphasised in the Bible? It’s because it destroys the enjoyment and potential of happiness a marriage — God’s first gift to man — can bring to a woman. Through that, her husband, if he isn’t her first sexual partner, too will suffer (collateral damage anyone?). Which is why, as mentioned in the Deut verses, the man can raise the red flag about his new wife’s virginity with her parents and the community. And that if she’s found to be guilty of fornication, he is free to remarry.
Women are gatekeepers to sex. They have a choice whether or not they should accede to a man’s intentions of having sexual relations with her. They can shut down those tingles or ignore them. This is even more so for Christian women because they know about the sin of fornication.
LikeLike
Just to add:
Being a invol cel and having been warned for the past twenty years of my life about sexual sins seemingly only males are wont to engage from the pulpit almost every other Sunday, I am more than aware about how serious sexual sins are for men.
LikeLike
Ballista74 said:
I know I’m a scratched record but the [in]famous exception clause [Matt.5:32 & Matt19:9] is a reference to the loss of the bride’s virginity, please consider:
But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the loss of her virginity, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
This truth has been lost since the early reformers invented new ways to interpret the exception clause. Oddly enough many non christian nations still understand this truth. Now the churches are over run with remarried couples and the clergy are scared to loose any people, they maintain the feminist agenda with a dedication. And even enlist women into their ranks to ensure the ongoing status quo…[sigh]
P.S. I don’t know if html [above] will render correctly, I typed it in.
LikeLike
Interesting Conversation.
I’ve seen this “Gone With The Wind” mentality. It’s disheartening to the husband of a woman that has it.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
Convert discovers old post of ballista74, gets upset and bleats about it; ballista74 responds here.
LikeLike
“What have you to say about women (and men for that matter) who get saved later on in life, having gone through somewhat salacious existences?”
I agree with her here – to a point. That we’ve all fallen short of God’s standards and need second chances goes without saying. However, there are still temporary penalties that we pay for our actions. Jenna Jameson could accept Christ someday – and I hope she does – but I still wouldn’t touch her with a ten-foot pole afterward.
LikeLike
I’ll say I agree with her pretty much too in that regard. The problem comes in terms of entitlement, which is where the desire to “wipe the slate” comes from. I make no secret that I have a N count that is not zero from my pre-Christ life. That said, I think the measure is to remember the grace we have in terms of what we do – forgive as we have been forgiven for instance. That said, I feel it would be hypocritical if I demanded a virgin, but like you say, I wouldn’t go anywhere near Jenna Jameson with a ten-foot pole. In other words, I don’t feel entitled to a HB 10 virgin, but I know my worth too and know I don’t have to man-up and marry someone like Jenna Jameson.
It was certainly disheartening to Rhett.
@JustSaying Speaking from experience, all it takes is once.
LikeLike
@ Don
That translation is not accurate. As I explained above, the greek word used there is porneia. It means sexual immorality, and includes fornication as well as illicit unions. See 1 Cor 5:1 for an example of its use in that context. The notion that a non-virgin woman cannot marry is not supported by Scripture; remember that St. Paul mentioned widows remarrying (but only a believer), and they are pretty clearly not virgins.
LikeLike
donalgraeme said:
Thanks Donald for your response.
I agree with you that the greek word ‘porneia’ can be translated in other ways beside pre-marital sex.
But if you consider the context of the exception clause [Matt19:9] you will note that Jesus distanced Himself from the argument of the pharisees with a meaning other than post nuptial sexual misconduct, and set a very high standard for His church. Jesus didn’t align Himself with rabbi Shammai as you have inadvertently implied.
I have not said or implied that non-virgins cannot marry. I have said that the exception clause is most likely a reference to the loss of the brides virginity. If you’re interested please have a look at Once Married Always Married. http://oncemarried.net
LikeLike
Don
Except that porneia is never applied to that situation anywhere else in the Bible. Where it is applied, however, is with illicit unions, like in 1 Cor 5. That is the most likely reference to what Jesus meant. Matthew is the most Jewish of the gospels, and was almost certainly composed for Jewish Christians. So they would have understood that what Jesus meant was that when the marriage was never lawful to begin with if you put away (otherwise stated: sent away) a woman it wasn’t adultery.
Fornication doesn’t make sense in that context either.
LikeLike
donalgraeme said:
Thanks for your response donal. For the sake of this discussion I will use the following definitions, if you would like to use others that’s fine.
Fornication = illicit sex without a covenant.
Adultery = illicit sex within a covenant.
1st) In John 8:41 the Jews said to Jesus “we are not born of fornication…” meaning they were not born out of wedlock.
2nd) When Joseph discovered Mary was pregnant he thought to “put her away privately” because Joe knew he didn’t get Mary pregnant. He assumed Mary had been fornicating. The word fornication isn’t used in this example but it is obviously implied. Fornication was understood to be a deal breaker.
3) Any study of the Hebrew marriage customs and laws reveals that the groom pays for the bride with a dowry paid to the bride’s father (Gen. 34:12, Exod. 22:17) . Many examples can be found in the Old Testament of this, e.g. David could not afford the dowry for a king’s daughter (very expensive) (1Sam.18:25). No better example of this is than the groom Jesus paid for His bride, not with corruptible silver and gold but with His own blood, revealed as a dowry in this example.
Terms and conditions.
No try before buy.
Payment upfront in full before marriage.
One exception only, if the girl is not a virgin the deal could be called off. Hence the reason why Jesus said “except it be for fornication”. This also reveals the importance of holiness, if we don’t maintain our chastity then we will be excluded from the marriage supper.
I agree with the Jewishness of Matt’s gospel, but this brings us back to the previously posted Deut.22:13-21
The Jewish audience would understand that premarital sex [according to the law] was punishable by death. This applied only to the bride, not the groom.
LikeLike
And I forgot, most of the above is cut n paste from
http://oncemarried.net
LikeLike