Does having sex make you married?

[cinder]

How else she have 5 husbands and none be her husband including the one she with now (now meaning almsot 2000 years ago by a well)?

Erroneous assumption: sex = marriage

Erroneous conclusion: Due to above assumption, Jesus, in contrast to the culture of the day, must have called all 5 men that she had slept with husbands regardless of cultural legal status

Counter argument that has been presented several times in this thread: She had been married 5 times, but was living with a 6th man at that time that she had not married

Now please remove your cranium from your posterior. This point has been argued for far too long, we all know what you think, and very few (if any) people agree with you on this passage.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Erroneous assumption: sex = marriage

Erroneous conclusion: Due to above assumption, Jesus, in contrast to the culture of the day, must have called all 5 men that she had slept with husbands regardless of cultural legal status

Counter argument that has been presented several times in this thread: She had been married 5 times, but was living with a 6th man at that time that she had not married

Now please remove your cranium from your posterior. This point has been argued for far too long, we all know what you think, and very few (if any) people agree with you on this passage.

Yea but then they could not be her husbands because Jesus says the man she with now is not her husband if Jesus was playing by their culture. And keep in mind that all started with him telling her to go call her husband. So there's no way she can have 5 husbands be with the man she is now and him not be her husband unless she had 1 husband and 4 affairs and this man be the 4th affair/5th man she with or remarried under Samaritan cultural customs.

 

[secularhermit]

[h=2]Re: Does having sex make you married?[/h]

If such is that, I have married too much.

 

[DarlinNadia]

Yea but then they could not be her husbands because Jesus says the man she with now is not her husband if Jesus was playing by their culture. And keep in mind that all started with him telling her to go call her husband. So there's no way she can have 5 husbands be with the man she is now and him not be her husband unless she had 1 husband and 4 affairs and this man be the 4th affair/5th man she with or remarried under Samaritan cultural customs.

Let's try it this way. Suppose Bonnie is woman at the well.

Bonnie is sleeping with Bob (Mary's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Joe (Sally's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Jim (Jenny's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Bill (Linda's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Lou (Cindy's husband)

okay that's 5 guys.. NONE are Bonnie's husband
Bonnie is also sleeping with Dale... also not Bonnie's husband but he's not married to anyone.

NONE are *Bonnie's* husband ... I think Jesus was calling her attention to the fact that she's sleeping with ALL these men but she is not married to any of them...

Jesus saw through her sin... in the way he phrased it she was able to understand that she wasn't married and had no business giving herself sexually to ANY of these men that are not her husband.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

So there's no way she can have 5 husbands be with the man she is now and him not be her husband unless she had 1 husband and 4 affairs and this man be the 4th affair/5th man she with or remarried under Samaritan cultural customs.

The only way she can have 5 husbands and be with the man she is now with and him not be her husband is if she actually ceremonially married the first 5, one after another, and then did NOT marry the 6th man but fornicated with him anyway. This is the only possible way I can see this passage being consistent.

The way you are describing it - one husband and four affairs - is not what is written. It is written that she had five husbands and one not-husband.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

The only way she can have 5 husbands and be with the man she is now with and him not be her husband is if she actually ceremonially married the first 5, one after another, and then did NOT marry the 6th man but fornicated with him anyway. This is the only possible way I can see this passage being consistent.

The way you are describing it - one husband and four affairs - is not what is written. It is written that she had five husbands and one not-husband.

Lol where does this 6th man keep coming in at? Jesus doesn't speak of 6 husbands.

 

[DarlinNadia]

Let's try it this way. Suppose Bonnie is woman at the well.

Bonnie is sleeping with Bob (Mary's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Joe (Sally's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Jim (Jenny's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Bill (Linda's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Lou (Cindy's husband)

okay that's 5 guys.. NONE are Bonnie's husband
Bonnie is also sleeping with Dale... also not Bonnie's husband but he's not married to anyone.

NONE are *Bonnie's* husband ... I think Jesus was calling her attention to the fact that she's sleeping with ALL these men but she is not married to any of them...

Jesus saw through her sin... in the way he phrased it she was able to understand that she wasn't married and had no business giving herself sexually to ANY of these men that are not her husband.

Am I the only person that interprets it like this?

That the husband's she is having sex with are not her husband but husband's to other women.. and the final guy is someone she's having sex with but not married to

 

[DarlinNadia]

Lol where does this 6th man keep coming in at? Jesus doesn't speak of 6 husbands.

take away one of the guys... the point is still the same.

 

[Markum1972]

.

Wow, this thread blew up while I was away. I gotta say how amazed I am that this has been discussed in such a godly way by everyone, and I'm impressed with the valid arguments on both sides.

You were away? And here I thought you were just sitting back watching the show. lol It's a great topic you posted. I personally have learned a lot from many of the comments as well as digging through scriptures. I agree with you too, it is great how everyone has come to reason together. It has been awesome.

But if she'd been with five guys (husbands), and then she was with a sixth guy, by your argument the sixth man would have also been listed as a husband. What sets the 6th man apart from the first 5?

If she was an adulteress against her first husband with her sixth, then why are the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th also listed as being her husbands? Any man after the first one would have been not technically a husband due to adultery, right?

The only way I can view this passage with consistency is to assume that she'd had a marriage contract with the first 5 men, but did not have one with the 6th man. If that weren't the case, then either ALL of the men after the first one would NOT have been husbands, or else all of them without exception WOULD have been husbands.

One day I was reading this with a friend. He said, "You see? This woman was living in sin." I was a bit perplexed. I asked him, "How so?" He said, "Because she was having sex outside of marriage." I was still a bit confused so I asked if we could read it again. After we were finished reading it, we both agreed that there was no place written that said that she was having sex with the man that she was living with.

I only point that out because that would clear up any confusion. It certainly did for us. Just something to consider.

This is very interesting. I had to look it up and read more about it. Here is a commentary offering another possible interpretation to the scripture. It leads that the man with "his virgin" is actually the father, not the husband-to-be.

I agree that the latter verses about giving her in marriage would refer to the father, however the context of scripture seems to speak for itself.

But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry. Nevertheless he who stands steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but has power over his own will, and has so determined in his heart that he will keep his virgin, does well. So then he who gives her in marriage does well, but he who does not give her in marriage does better.

a. If any man thinks he is behaving improperly towards his virgin: The man Paul refers to is the father of a young woman or man of marrying age (his virgin). The behaving improperly has nothing to do with any kind of improper moral behavior, but with denying his daughter or son the right to marry, based on the way Paul values singleness.

i. Remember that in this ancient culture, a young person's parents had the primary responsibility for arranging their marriage. So based on what Paul has already taught, should a Christian father recommend celibacy to his child?

BUT... if any man... ("but" was removed from note a.)
The word "but" includes an exclusion or exception to what was said before. Read up to this verse (1 Corinthians 7:36) to see who he was speaking to.

ii. The term virgin includes the young of both sexes.

1 Corinthians 7
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

b. Let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry: Paul says it is not wrong for a father to allow his young daughter to marry, even allowing for the desirability of singleness at the present time.

Let them marry applies to anyone that might try to interfere or discourage them. At that time, this was usually the father. Let's remember that it is the principle that matters most so that we are able to apply it to today.

Paul stated this before and it would appear that uncomely was a result of not being able to contain. Paul was covering things in order as to how they may happen.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

Lol where does this 6th man keep coming in at? Jesus doesn't speak of 6 husbands.

[SUP]"18 [/SUP]for thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast (this is the 6th man) is not thy husband: this hast thou said truly."

5 husbands plus 1 non-husband = 6 men

This is my point... he wasn't a husband.

 

[ww_21]

I will answer this based on personal experience for me it would mean YES because I intend to keep my virginity till I am MARRIED.

I agree to what the others above me are saying as well though. This is just my personal preference.

 

[Markum1972]

Btw... did someone mention Five Guys? Why am I suddenly hungry?

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Let's try it this way. Suppose Bonnie is woman at the well.

Bonnie is sleeping with Bob (Mary's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Joe (Sally's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Jim (Jenny's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Bill (Linda's husband)
Bonnie is sleeping with Lou (Cindy's husband)

okay that's 5 guys.. NONE are Bonnie's husband
Bonnie is also sleeping with Dale... also not Bonnie's husband but he's not married to anyone.

NONE are *Bonnie's* husband ... I think Jesus was calling her attention to the fact that she's sleeping with ALL these men but she is not married to any of them...

Jesus saw through her sin... in the way he phrased it she was able to understand that she wasn't married and had no business giving herself sexually to ANY of these men that are not her husband.

Well I'm not sure if any of the men were actualyl married to another woman, scripture does not say.

This a good way to present the model

Okay, so her marriages aren't the "cultural/legal" marriage or else we'd have your unspoken of 6th husband, but yet he not her husband. The husband she with now is number 5 and even he is not her husband. In fact I beleive when she answered Jesus that she had no husband that she was being honest and that she thought he meant in the legal/cultural sense and she never underwent wedding ceremony, therefore she answer such. She simply thought he meant wedding ceremony, thus answer for her be no.

the model be this

1 She may have slept with 1 Guy not wedding ceremony, but maybe like ye olde girlfriend/boyfriend type stuff. Its not exactly unheard of if you're familiar with history (or daytime tv talk shows). This be her true husband!
2 (Bob Doe) she move onto either intentionally cheating, or maybe just things didn't work out with Guy 1 (might be the guy's fault idk, wasn't there).
3 (Jack the Fictional Pseudonym) she move onto either intentionally cheating on either Guy or Bob or simply relationship with Bob didn't work out
4 (John the Fictional Pseudonym) she move onto either intentionally cheating on either Guy, Bob, or Jack, or simply the relationships didn't work for various reasons.
5 (Walter Wellman the Fictional Pseudonym) she is now living with after or during her dramas with Guy, Bob, Jack, John. Yet even he is not her husband.

 

[DarlinNadia]

Well I'm not sure if any of the men were actualyl married to another woman, scripture does not say.

This a good way to present the model

Okay, so her marriages aren't the "culturla/legal" marriage or else we'd have your unspoken of 6th husband, but yet he not her husband. The husband she with now is number 5 and even he is not her husband. In fact I beleive when she answered Jesus that she had no husband that she was being hoenst and that she thought he meant in the legal/cultural sense and she never underwent wedding ceremony, therefore she answer such.

the model be this

1 She may have slept with 1 Guy not wedding ceremony, but maybe like ye olde girlfriend/boyfriend type stuff. Its not exactly unheard of if you're familiar with history (or daytime tv talk shows). This be her true husband!
2 (Bob Doe) she move onto either intentionally cheating, or maybe just things didn't work out with Guy 1 (might be the guy's fault idk, wasn't there).
3 (Jack the Fictional Pseudonym) she move onto either intentionally cheating on either Guy or Bob or simply relationship with Bob didn't work out
4 (John the Fictional Pseudonym) she move onto either intentionally cheating on either Guy, Bob, or Jack, or simply the relationships didn't work for various reasons.
5 (Walter Wellman the Fictional Pseudonym) she is now living with after or during her dramas with Guy, Bob, Jack, John. Yet even he is not her husband.

wow . .. fail.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Also consider, if it be that Jesus said she answered well, the Woman of the Well is the one that said "I have no husband." Why would she say this if she had been married in a cultural fashion either currently or before?

One could say she was lying, but Jesus dispels that by saying she answered well.

 

[Grace-Like-Rain]

I'm still undecided on this issue. I agree that sex is a critical part of bonding a marriage, and that the two shall become one flesh. There IS a spiritual connection there. My natural objection to this is that I see many people "joining" in this sort of marriage without having any sort of official commitment. Many times they will later dissolve their arrangement and go their own way with no repercussion. I realize there are always repercussions with God, but I can't feel "right" about the statement "well, we are married in God's eyes so it's all good". There were official ceremonies and contracts in the Bible. Marriage was more than having sex. It was betrothals and agreements between families, and covenants and even exchanged camels and sheep. I have a hard time seeing the co-habitation and fornication that goes on even in Christian circles as holy matrimony in God's eyes.

 

[maxwel]

I'm still undecided on this issue. I agree that sex is a critical part of bonding a marriage, and that the two shall become one flesh. There IS a spiritual connection there. My natural objection to this is that I see many people "joining" in this sort of marriage without having any sort of official commitment. Many times they will later dissolve their arrangement and go their own way with no repercussion. I realize there are always repercussions with God, but I can't feel "right" about the statement "well, we are married in God's eyes so it's all good". There were official ceremonies and contracts in the Bible. Marriage was more than having sex. It was betrothals and agreements between families, and covenants and even exchanged camels and sheep. I have a hard time seeing the co-habitation and fornication that goes on even in Christian circles as holy matrimony in God's eyes.

If a girl's family won't accept my camels and sheep... it's not a real marriage.

 

[MidniteWelder]

One could say she was lying, but Jesus dispels that by saying she answered well.

The way I see it, because in her heart, she did not consider him her husband.
Therefore Jesus had to agree with her, because she possibly knew not the sin she was committing.

If we look at the first wording Jesus used
[SUP]16 [/SUP]He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.”
let's stop right here and ask ourselves.
Would Jesus be wrong? Would Jesus used trickery to open up conversation?



[SUP]17 [/SUP]“I have no husband,” she replied.
Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. [SUP]18

[/SUP]What I am noticing is that Jesus is agreeing with her voicing what her heart speaks.
It's kinda like...oh he's not your husband, Ok I accept that.
So either she was living in sin and admitted what she was, or she hadn't had sensual relations yet with current man.
although, this would mean she would be a good girl, yet after having had 5 husbands and now has another man whom she denies is her husband, that seems unlikely she was suddenly changed in her ways, considering Jesus was calling her to him right then and there to begin with.
We see her heart is receptive, so why make a fuss over her sin at the moment.
at any rate, Jesus was calling light to her actions yet not making a point to correct her at that time until drawing her to him first.



The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.”

Kinda like...Hmm yes I see, ok fine he's not your husband, if thats the way you wanna play it. But thats even worse.

I doubt Jesus called the man her husband at first in error until she revealed her heart in denial of this.

But hey, maybe Jesus just used trickery to strike up convo with this one. Who knows.

Anyway, you guys hash it out, the point I believe is paramount is Jesus made it clear he had divine insight into her life which could have only came from God.
And because of this fact, it allowed her to trust him and listen to his words.

 

[Markum1972]

I look forward to coming back tomorrow and reading and studying more with you all.

In the meantime, I wanted to clarify what I have seen so there is no misunderstanding.

Sex has been perverted by the world into something that is clearly not what God intended to be. It is clearly the most intimate form of bonding that can exist between a man and a woman; it unifies you. It should be a result of an attraction to one another, a drawing to one another that results in clinging together to one another.

It is like that drawing closeness that we should have with God; an eternal desire to become even closer and closer without the dissatisfaction that comes from lust.

It is a beautiful and amazing thing that God intended to be shared between ONE woman and ONE man. It is not to be a shameful thing, but something that is special and is a result of the two wanting to know one another so deeply and with so much love.

This world creates a fear; but not a fear of that intimacy; but a fear of committing to the one you have chosen to share it with. God wants us to remain in that bond that we chose; to forsake all others and to let no one divide you apart. He created this attraction between us as an example of the love that he has for us. It is all that is encompassed within 1 Corinthians 13 and not one part different. It is one of the most beautiful things that God has created.

It is my hope that we come to an understanding of this love and encourage our young to choose wisely and commit. It is my hope that we would overcome the world and enjoy the beauty of this bond as God intended.

Good night all. See you tomorrow.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Another example I included was incest.

To the horror and shame of society, way too many people are subjected to sexual abuse within their own families.

If a young woman is abused by her own father, a cousin, brother, etc., are they required to marry? I would think, absolutely not! And if she is abused by her mother's boyfriend/husband (who is not her father), should she be required to marry him, especially if he is already married to her mother?

Again, I would think not, but I'm always open towards learning if there are passages that state something otherwise.

Just to touch on this no victims of incest don't have to marry. Incest is listed as fornication in the Bible, even moreso incest is even defined as sex with non-biological in-laws. Basic common sense really that I wish was more prevalent in society but is lacking through pretty much all history. Simple concept is we all a family, don't wanna hurt your family, incest hurts families. Not trying to underwrite the direct victims of incest, but really even the whole family is a victims of that sin if it be committed. Which be why such is evil even I think without the Bible good people like everyone here knows this. It's kinda like those unwritten rules you knew as a kid, you just know stuff like that goes against love. So you are totally in the right here Seoul that incest is not good and no you're not required to undergo cultural ceremony of marriage if you're an incest victim.

EDIT: also the victim of such is not in the wrong, they are a victim, not a perp. I understand there be shame from the cultural view but meh, Jesus don't see how the world sees. He will heal the victims of the world and the meek shall inherit the earth.