Focus on the Family Believes “Sex is Marriage”!

Leave a reply

Incredible.  I found this article at Focus on the Family — “Does sex equal marriage?”

http://family.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/26462/~/does-sex-equal-marriage-in-god%E2%80%99s-eyes%3F

The article begins by answering a reader’s question — “When a couple has sex, aren’t they essentially married in God’s eyes? It seems to me that if the younger generation understood this and believed it, things would change fast. Dating as we know it would cease. Virgin women wouldn’t dream of putting themselves in a compromising position with a man. A young man would be far more careful if he knew that the moment he crossed the line he was committed. Wouldn’t you agree that this is the message we need to be communicating?“

Focus on the Family replies — “Technically speaking, you’re right on target in suggesting that, in God’s eyes, marriage has more to do with the sex act than it does with church ceremonies or legal documents. According to Scripture, marriage is fundamentally a matter of a man and a woman becoming one flesh (Genesis 2:24). Sexual intercourse is central to that process.” 

“….he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.”  James 1:8

FOTF says, “marriage has more to do with the sex act…” and then proceeds to speak out of the other side of the mouth by implying the ‘one flesh’ concept is something other than simply Sexual Intercourse.

This is a classic example of a Hireling.  Their conscience knows the truth, but ‘Self’ and ‘popularity’ prevail.  So they appeal to the masses — the broad road.

Becoming one flesh is simply and purely = Sexual Intercourse.  There is no other interpretation.  One Flesh, or becoming One Flesh is nothing other than sexual intercourse.  Period.  End of Story.  For anyone to say otherwise, is deceived, a Heretic; a false teacher; a Hireling. 

The deception is in the words — ‘Becoming’ and ‘Process’.

As if to imply that One Flesh is more than just a single act of Sex.  It is not.  One Flesh is simply Sex.  There is no ‘process’.  There is no ‘becoming’.  You are either joined as one flesh; or you are not. A woman is either a Virgin or she is not. There is no “in between”.

But yet the “itching ears” accepts this erroneous teaching.

The amazing aspect to this article is in the Question.  I could write an entire book on just this one question.  The reason the world is in the shape that it is today is simply because Man has not followed God’s desire for sex and marriage, which is a Natural Law.  I would imagine 90% of those couples who are ‘married’ are not married after all.  They are “legally” married with the approval of the State, but I would venture to say over 90% of Christian couples today are practicing adulterers – Romans 7:2-3. 

The Scriptures say that God does not hear Sinners. How can a person “Hear” the Holy Spirit while they are in continual sin. Paul says “adulterers” will not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven.

…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

What I find amazing about this article is that Focus on the Family actually admits that having sex in the eyes of God is marriage.

They say — “Technically speaking, you’re right on target in suggesting that, in God’s eyes, marriage has more to do with the sex act than it does with church ceremonies or legal documents.” 

They also say —  How do we get them to care about the fact that sexual activity equals marriage in the eyes of God?

FOTF comes right out and says it!  “…sexual activity equals marriage in the eyes of God.”

Unbelievable.  Unbelievable, because they admit that sex is marriage in God’s eyes, ‘but not in ours’.  Is this not the epitome of arrogance/pride?

Is this not the perfect example of a people who have completely lost the ‘fear of the Lord’?

How does a man sleep at night when he can admit that God recognizes Sex is Marriage, but then do nothing about it.  ???

Even given the idea of Spiritual Blindness (deception), you would think that just having a basic sense of logic and reasoning skills, would cause a person to seriously examine this reality.  But, no one cares.  No one cares because no one fears the Lord.  They just don’t fear Eternity.  500 Years of Calvinistic Baggage that evolved into Modern Evangelical “judeo-christianity” — that Changed the Definition of God’s Grace and turned it into a license for immorality – Jude 4. God forgives Adultery — even in the very act of it. Blasphemy.

………………………………………………………….

I am willing to bet that if I were to ask 100 Christian pastors/teachers whether Biblical Marriage should be “subjective” or “objective”, they would almost all say biblical marriage should be objective.  Especially in light of the gay marriage controversy.  They would have to say biblical marriage should be objective.

How is Romans 7:2-3 anything other than an Objective statement?  A woman can remarry upon the death of her spouse.  Death is an emphatic statement.  Death is final.  Death is not subjective.  Death is decidedly objective.  You are either dead or you are alive.  Period.

This must be the definition of Hypocrite.  The Scripture says ‘death’ can only separate the marriage bond; spiritually dead christians say ‘death’ is not the only remedy.

This Hireling over at the http://www.theos.org blog has written practically a book explaining his sin.  http://www.thenarrowpath.com/ta_divorce.php

I copied his “research” paper onto Word and counted his words.

19,553 Words.

250 paragraphs.

Wow!  Subjective or Objective?

I will explain Biblical Marriage and lets compare:

— When a virgin girl has sex, she is now known by the man.  She is joined to the man as ‘one flesh’.  Society should recognize this couple as ‘man and wife’.  Society’s failure to recognize this couple as ‘man and wife’ is not the fault of the Scriptures.

This ‘one flesh’ union is only severed by death.

You take this simple formula and apply it to EVERY passage related to sex and marriage and it fits.  No subjective interpretation necessary.  The Scriptures will speak for themselves.

Take the challenge.  Prove me wrong.  — END —  56 words by the way, compared to 20,000.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Focus on the Family says — Where we may see things differently is in the area of practical application. What are the implications of this theological truth for couples living in the cultural context of 21st century America?

Wow!  As if 2000 years since the time of Jesus and His Apostles changes the way in which God intended for us to live.  We must ‘adapt’ our theological convictions because of “Culture”? Culture, dictates how we apply God’s Laws. Shameful.

How did we get here?  This is an argument I have in my mind all the time.  Kind of like the ‘chicken or the egg’ conversation.

Jude writes — “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation, ungodly men, who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ.” 

I believe the teaching of Once Saved Always Saved is the final product of this apostasy that first began during the time of the Apostles.  I don’t know exactly what was being taught during that time, but I could imagine it was very similar to what we have today.  This idea that once a person believes in Jesus Christ and receives “Salvation”, such a person is saved and will always be saved despite their actions in the future.  99% of Christians today believe in Eternal Security.

Is this how Man lost the desire to “follow” Jesus in all things pertaining to life and Godliness?  Deciding to be married is probably the second most important decision one makes in their lifetime.  Why do men and women just trust their church or trust tradition to explain marriage and how to be married?  Could the belief in OSAS be partly responsible?

At the end of the day, the belief in Once Saved Always Saved is “a different Jesus” — 2 Corinthians 11:4.  There is an aspect to “knowing Jesus”.  Jesus implies that He will turn many away because He “does not know them”.  So it is true that our Salvation is a relationship with the Lord Jesus.  Just as any relationship requires a knowledge of one another; so too is our relationship with the Messiah.  We must ‘know’ Him in order to follow Him.  The idea that Jesus took our punishment so that we can continue to sin and not be held accountable for that sin, is simply — “another Jesus”.

Now will be the time to read — “God’s Natural Law of Marriage and the Erroneous Marriage Covenant” — https://areyoumarried.wordpress.com/2024/02/07/biblical-marriage-and-the-erroneous-marriage-covenant/

Did you know???

Leave a reply

(and Divorce)

Did you know that a woman can only be “One Flesh” with ONE man at a time and the marriage bed be undefiled? Only a Virgin girl or a Widowed woman can “get married”.

Did you know that there is not ONE example of a non-virgin woman taking a husband and is considered Righteous, in the Scriptures?

Challenge —- Find me one example of a non-virgin woman or a non-widowed woman who takes a husband in some kind of Ceremony or Sacred Oath, and the Scriptures portray this marriage as a righteous union. A woman cannot be “One Flesh” with more than ONE man at the same time and the so called “marriage” be considered Righteous.

Should we not find this very, very important?

“Christians” just assume the bible is full of stories of non-virgin women taking a husband and all is right and just. Under the Law of Moses, it is “implied” that it happened (Deut 24), but in Matthew 19 — Jesus makes it very clear that this was NOT God’s Will. Deuteronomy 24 is NOT permission. The word “when” or “if” is a word that is added by the translator. It is not in the original.

The KJV translates Strong’s H1980 in the following manner: go (217x), walk (156x), come (16x), …away (7x), …along (6x), miscellaneous (98x).

The Verse should read — “And when she is departed out H3318 of his house, H1004 and leaves H1980  to be another H312 man’s H376 wife.”

Deuteronomy 24:2 — the Context is what should the husband do if he wants to take back his wife after she has departed from his house and becomes “one flesh” i.e., takes another man in marriage. The Instruction is — NO!

During the time of the Law of Moses — men did what men will do. Jesus called them “Stiff Necked”. Deut 24 is NOT permission for a woman to become “one flesh” with a second man while her first union is intact. Only Death will sever the One Flesh union.

Challenge — Find me ONE girl/woman in Scripture who is “one flesh” with more than 1 man at the same time and the Scriptures speak of her as being in a Righteous Union. There is not ONE. Tamar tore her robe of Virginity and remained desolate in her brother’s house. Why? Because she was INELIGIBLE (defiled) to have a husband because she was now a non-virgin. And not yet a widow. (2 Samuel 13)

That should prick your conscience (Soul).

Paul speaks to “Widows” in his letter to the Corinthians regarding marriage. Why “Widows”? It makes no sense; if “death” has nothing to do with how a marriage is made.

A girl/woman who is “one flesh” with a man is ineligible to be ceremonially/civilly married to a different man as long as the first “one flesh” marriage union is intact. Only DEATH will sever that original one flesh union.

But yet “Christianity” marries non-virgin women every week of the year.

Sexual Intercourse i.e., the Marriage of Two Flesh become One is a Natural Law. Like Fire is Hot. Jump in ice cold water and eventually you will die if you don’t get out and warm your body. Jump in a fire and you will burn to death. Restrict Oxygen to the brain and you will die. These are all Natural Laws.

“One Flesh” is a Natural Law. As “Grace” does not protect someone who jumps into a freezing lake expecting to be saved from the consequences; “Grace” does not ignore the One Flesh Union. Paul is very clear — only Death severs the One Flesh Union created through sexual intercourse. “Forgiveness” also does not magically erase the One Flesh Union. If true — Paul was wasting his time when he said that a joined woman can only remarry when the death of her man occurs — 1 Corinthians 7:39. Why speak to Widowhood? Why speak to Virgins? It makes no sense if either of those are insignificant. Paul speaks to Virgins and Widows but yet no one so far has been able to explain to me “Why”. They say — “It was required THEN, but not NOW.” “It was a cultural thing.”

We’ve come full Circle —- People say to me — “…. a non-virgin girl is joined to a man as one flesh but is not married.” So, then I ask — “Please tell me, HOW does one marry?”

This is when I get 10 different answers. All Subjective answers.

Sex before the Sacred Oath = SIN. Sex after the Sacred Oath = Marriage.

But yet 10 men can’t get their minds together and come up with the proper parameters i.e., proper rituals and procedures required for a “Sacred” oath. Not to mention — Jesus said “Do not make Oaths!”

When a girl allows a man to “go into her”, she is agreeing to be “One Flesh” with the man. This is the Covenant. Whether she is aware of this or not — is not God’s fault! It is MAN’s fault. “Men” have failed the Adamic Race. Not God. He gave us His Word — we ignored Him.

Note — Please do not use Gomer as a one example without first reading “God told Hosea to do what”? —https://areyoumarried.org/2025/10/11/god-told-hosea-to-do-what-by-edward-ridenour/ Or —  https://areyoumarried.wordpress.com/2017/12/01/god-told-hosea-to-do-what/

— Divorce —

Divorce. What is it?

Where in the Scriptures are the Proper Procedures and Rituals Required for Divorce? And WHO would one go to, to make all this happen? A Lawyer? A Pastor? How do they divinely acquire this power?

Most people will think I am crazy asking because of the Decades of Brainwashing on this topic. But “Divorce” is a Man-Made Instrument. It does NOT occur in Nature. It is not a Natural Law. “Death” is a natural law.

A quick internet search brought up this — “…Early divorce laws — The oldest codified divorce law dates back to 1760 BC, when King Hammurabi of Babylon carved 282 laws into stone tablets. In the ancient Roman Republic, a simple statement of intent to divorce was enough to dissolve a marriage….”.

Colonial and 18th century America — In the 17th century, many colonies created judicial tribunals to hear divorce cases. Adultery was a common reason for divorce….”

Man’s Laws Vs. God’s Laws. This is the Question we should be asking.

A quick Etymological explanation of the word Divorce reveals this — “…Where did the word divorce come from?
History of Divorce, Origins and Meaning — “Divorce” comes from the Latin word “divortium” which means separation. It is also equivalent to the word “divort” or “divortere.” “Di” means apart and “vertere” means to turn to different ways. Divertere was also referred the meaning of divert, turn aside, separate or leave…”

In the Scriptures — the Hebrew Word and Greek Word are either translated in one of two ways — Divorce or To Put Away. I believe the most consistent definition should be simple — “to Walk Away From”. Because this is all that it is. But “Man” has given it a definition and rules.

Jesus said — “…They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

BUT FROM THE BEGINNING IT WAS NOT SO. This is the Key right there. The beginning. The beginning of what? Answer — Life. This is why I say “Divorce” does not exist in Nature. Adam and Eve were married BECAUSE they were joined as One Flesh through the act of sexual intercourse. Eve was then bound to Adam as One Flesh for as long as Adam was alive. If Adam were to have “walked away” from Eve, that would be what we consider “Divorce”. This is all it is. It is a Man-Made Instrument.

When a virgin girl has sexual intercourse with a man, she becomes Joined to this man for the LIFE of the man. That is God’s Natural Law. If a man “walks away” from a woman who he is One Flesh with —- they are still joined as One Flesh and that union will last until the death of the man. This is God’s Natural Law of Marriage. However, a man cannot “walk away from” a Righteous one flesh union except for “fornication” — Matthew 19. He would be subject to God’s Natural Law of Romans 7:2-3.

In the Scriptures — during the Administration of the Israelite Economy i.e. the Law of Moses, judicated by the Levitical Priesthood — “Divorce” was a Man-made instrument of dissolving “Legal” obligations legislated by MAN. Jesus said “Moses Permitted it”, but from the beginning, such a thing did not exist.

We have ONE passage which explains the PURPOSE of such a practice — Deuteronomy 22:14 — “….. and says, ‘I took this woman, and when I came to her I found she was not a virgin …..”.

When the man discovers that his “bride to be” was not a Virgin — then a Righteous One Flesh Union did not occur. It could not occur. Why? Because the girl/woman is ALREADY One Flesh with another man. Such is a Defilement of the Flesh — 1 Corinthians 6:16. A woman can only be One Flesh with ONE man at the same time.

During the Israelite Administration, they created a Ritual of “Betrothal” in regards to the Joining of Man and Woman i.e., Marriage. The Scriptures are vague as to what exactly “Betrothal” was. We have to speculate and make educated guesses. The best explanation that I can deduce — “Betrothal” was a ritual or procedure for legislating a marriage between two families — Civil Law. I wrote about Betrothal in my article — “When” under the Comment Section. It is the first and second comment.

Bottom Line — Betrothal was a Man-Made Instrument — Civil Law. There is nothing wrong with “man” creating traditions, customs and rituals. Nothing. However, these rituals, customs and traditions MUST be in Harmony with God’s Character and His Will. In the case of Joseph seeking a Divorce — I’m convinced this was about the “Betrothal Contract/Covenant” that was created by his father and Mary’s father i.e., Return the Dowry etc. Get out of his “obligations” as a civil husband.

Then we have another passage which mentions “Divorce” or “to Put Away” in Deuteronomy 24. However, the “Context” is what should the husband do if he desires his wife back after he has sent her away to have sexual intercourse with another man. That is the Context. “Permission” is NEVER mentioned in that passage. Deuteronomy 24 has DECEIVED Generations of “Christians”.

In Summary — DIVORCE is not God’s Natural Law. God NEVER intended for a Righteous One Flesh Union to be dissolved through Civil Law i.e., Man-Made Law. God’s Natural Law is DEATH. Only in DEATH can the woman take a second husband in Civil Marriage i.e., Ceremonial Marriage. Only in death can a woman become One Flesh with a different man.

“Divorce” did happen in the Old Testament — Israelite men “put away” their wives for various reasons. Moses permitted such and Jesus rebuked him for it.

The ONLY acceptable “Divorce” would be Deuteronomy 22:14. During the Israelite Economy, they simply STONED the woman. Jesus most certainly would not permit that today. Joseph recognized the Barbarity of such an act and sought to put Mary away Privately.

Bottom Line —- A girl/woman can ONLY be One Flesh with ONE man at a time and that union be Righteous.

Prove me wrong. Find me ONE woman in the Scriptures who is One Flesh with more than one man at the same time and the Scriptures describe this woman as righteous. It doesn’t exist. You can only FORCE it by insisting Gomer was not a virgin upon her marriage to Hosea.

The Irony here is even I were to concede that Gomer was not a Virgin —- God FORCED Hosea to take her as a wife.

How???! Please tell me how?

Leave a reply

I have many critics. Many even condemn me for not being “Christian”.

They try to make a case that “Marriage” is Sexual Intercourse + “Something Else”, but the something else is never congruent, scripturally logical and always subjective. Their best defense is to take ONE verse out of context and or focus on ONE word in a verse to make their case.

But …. the one thing they CANNOT do is tell me HOW a man becomes a husband and a woman a wife. At what precise moment does the man become a husband and the woman a wife.

This is when they leave and never return. And this happens on other Social Media Platforms as well. Not just here. They rebuke me, take a verse out of context, and then when I ask them to please explain to me how a man becomes a husband and a woman a wife — they are gone.

This Blog has numerous examples of various arguments for how non-virgin women can take a husband or remarry a husband. Just recently on Facebook a man argued with me that 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows a non-virgin woman to remarry. This is a perfect example of taking ONE verse out of context and ONE word “Literally” and then ignoring all the other verses, words and examples of marriage in the Scriptures. He wouldn’t even read my article — “Not Under Bondage” nor would he answer any of my questions nor say no more. That was it. He left and never returned. In fact he then “blocked” me on Facebook.

He refused to explain to me HOW that woman who was “abandoned” could then marry a man. It is easy to say someone is wrong or something is wrong then it is to establish your own theology as to how two people become married. Easy to be a critic; much harder to stand up and be a leader.

Question — HOW does a man become a husband and a woman a wife? At what magical moment does this happen? When precisely does God think of a man as a husband and a woman as a wife?

Why is it that hardly a man even tries to answer this question??? I believe only 4 people in the past 15+ years have tried to establish a pattern of procedural marriage. What is the process.

There is something seriously wrong here.

Please people, think. They don’t try to answer, because they can’t. Sexual Intercourse IS the Marriage of two Flesh become One. This is a Foundational doctrine. It is a Natural Law proved by Scripture.

Prove it wrong.

Marriage can NEVER be Subjective. No where do the Scriptures imply that marriage is left to man to define. If true, then fornication and adultery are Subjective also.

Who is willing to take that risk? It seems MANY.

Side Note — the Israelites tried to “Legislate” marriage. This is the beginning of what we call — Institutional Marriage i.e., Civil Laws concerning marriage. The Israelites created Traditions and Rituals. I believe the reason for this was to protect the Sanctity of Virginity first and foremost. The second reason is that the reality is a “Virgin Girl” was POWER. In our History as Europeans, men fought wars over a woman’s virginity. Men grew rich and gained prominence because of their daughter’s virginity.

But in the end, “marriage” is simple and does not require anything from anyone besides the man and the woman having sexual intercourse thus creating the One Flesh marriage.

“…. go into your brother’s wife and marry her….” — Genesis 38:8

Paul wrote to the Corinthians not to “Marry” a non-virgin woman.

Leave a reply

“…Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members with a non-virgin? Certainly not!  Or do you not know that he who is joined to a non-virgin is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body.…” — 1 Corinthians 6

If you take issue with the translation of “non-virgin”, ask yourself this one question —

“What is the difference “Physically Speaking” between a non-virgin woman and a harlot; who is also a non-virgin. Both are “One Flesh” with a man. Are they not?”

Having Intercourse with a non-virgin woman is having intercourse with a woman who is “One Flesh” with another man. Technically “adultery”. How does a “Vow” change this Fact? Would Paul had allowed a man to take a harlot for wife?

You will say, “what about forgiveness?”

My Question to you —- Both Jesus and Paul say that the One Flesh Union can only be severed by the death of the man. Why did not Jesus or Paul include “forgiveness” for remarriage? In fact … if “Forgiveness” erases the One Flesh Union, why even bother to say that “Death” releases the woman from the man? “Death” is not insignificant. It is Emphatic.

One Flesh is a Natural Law. Sexual Intercourse creates the One Flesh union which is a Natural Law. Procreation is a Natural Law. Sexual Intercourse is the Procreation — a Natural Law.

Therefore, DEATH is the Natural Law that severs the other Natural Law — One Flesh. One Flesh is Objective. It is only created by Sexual Intercourse. Not emotions or commitment.

A woman can only be One Flesh with one man at a time and the marriage bed be undefiled.

Prove that wrong.

Jesus gave us ONE exception to the remarriage of a woman. One. Not 5. One.

Virginity doesn’t matter — Tell that to Tamar!!! (2 Samuel 13)

Leave a reply

The whole world believes “Virginity” has nothing to do with marriage.

Really?

So, please, explain to me why Tamar was so distraught?!

“…So she said to him, No, indeed! This evil of sending me away is worse than the other than you did to me…“

 ….. Now she had on a robe of many colors, for the King’s Virgin daughters wore such apparel …….

 ….. Then Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore her robe of many colors that was on her, and laid her hand on her head and went away crying bitterly ….

….. So Tamar remained desolate in her brother Absalom’s house …...”

If Virginity is not important, why was Tamar so distraught? And why then did she remain desolate in her brother’s house?

Why did not someone simply tell her that she can be forgiven of this “One Flesh Union” and simply take a man in marriage?

This sad situation in the Scriptures is a perfect example of how “One Flesh” works.

The Scriptures are silent, but after Tamar’s brother takes his revenge and kills Amnon, the “One Flesh” union is Severed. Gone. Kaput. Over. Tamar would now be FREE from this union and could take a man in “cultural marriage”. See — 1 Corinthians 7:39/ Romans 7:2-3.

Have some Courage! Explain to me why Tamar was so distraught, tearing her robe of Virginity and remaining desolate in her brother’s house.

Tamar says, “…. This evil** of sending me away is worse than the other than you did to me….” —

We know what “the other that you did to me” is — Non-consensual Sexual Intercourse i.e., Rape. But what is “this evil”**? Why is “sending me away” WORSE than Rape?

This “Evil” is WORSE than Rape. What could be worse than Rape???

For he who has ears, let him hear.

Not under Bondage

Leave a reply

What Is the Meaning of “Not under Bondage” (1 Cor. 7:15)?

In First Corinthians 7:15, Paul affirms that if an unbelieving spouse abandons his/her Christian companion, the Christian is “not under bondage.” Some allege that this provides an additional cause for divorce – other than fornication (Mt. 5:32; 19:9). But is there real evidence for this position?

“Would you address First Corinthians 7:15? Does desertion by a non-believing spouse grant the abandoned Christian the right of remarriage?”  First Corinthians, chapter 7, the apostle Paul responds to a number of questions that had been submitted to him by various members of the church at Corinth (cf. 1 Cor. 7:1). Some of these questions had to do with the relationship of a believer who is married to an unbeliever.

For example, should the Christian leave the unbeliever? Paul’s answer was in the negative – not if the unbeliever is content to keep on dwelling with the Christian (7:12-13). The “sanctified” environment of a home in which the influence of the gospel is found could lead to the conversion of the unbelieving partner (7:14; cf. 1 Pet. 3:1).

But what if the unbeliever should not be content to remain with the Christian, and he “departs” (chorizetai, literally “separates himself”)? What should the Christian do? Paul says that the child of God “is not under bondage” in such cases (7:15).

Some have argued that First Corinthians 7:15 provides a second cause for divorce (in addition to the “fornication” of Matthew 5:32; 19:9), and so, by implication, expands Jesus’ teaching, and authorizes a subsequent remarriage on the ground of “desertion” by an unbelieving mate. This view is commonly called the “Pauline privilege.”

The theory certainly is not a new one; it was advocated by Chrysostom (c. A.D. 347-407), one of the so-called “church fathers.” It became a part of Roman Catholic Canon law, and was defended by Martin Luther. This view, we are convinced, is unwarranted and constitutes a compromise of the Lord’s teaching on divorce and remarriage.

A Look at the Context

First of all, this theory reads into the context that which simply is not there. Here are the facts. Some of the Corinthian saints had been influenced by a proto-Gnostic philosophy which asserted that sexual relations were intrinsically evil. These brethren, therefore, wanted to know the following:

  1. Should a Christian husband and wife separate from (chorizo) or leave (aphiemi) each other (10-11)? Paul’s answer was, No; but should a separation occur, celibacy should be maintained, or else reconciliation effected.
  2. Should a Christian leave his unbelieving spouse? Again, Paul’s response was, No; not if the unbeliever is willing to remain with the believer (12-13).
  3. What if the unbeliever initiates a separation? What should the Christian do? Let him go, the apostle says, the Christian is not enslaved to that spouse, so that domestic proximity is absolutely required (15). “Divorce” is not under consideration here. The New Testament term for divorce is apoluo (literally, to loose away; cf. Mt. 5:31-32; 19:3,7-9; Mk. 10:2-4,11-12; Lk. 16:18), and that word is meticulously avoided in First Corinthians 7:10-15.

In the second place, Paul makes it clear that the general theme under consideration in this context had not been comprehensively dealt with by the Lord. The Lord had taught concerning some matters – “not I, but the Lord” (v. 10), but not with reference to other matters – “say I, not the Lord” (v. 12). However, regarding divorce, Christ had spoken comprehensively (note the “whosoever” and “every one” (Mt. 5:31-32; 19:9). Thus, the subject being reviewed in First Corinthians 7:10-15 was not that of divorce.

Thirdly, the word rendered “bondage” (15) is the Greek term douloo, which means “to make a slave of.” Observe how the word is translated in Titus 2:3 – “enslaved to much wine.” Biblically speaking, marriage is never viewed as slavery! The “bondage,” i.e., enslavement, does not refer to the marriage union. If the unbeliever departs, that is not the Christian’s responsibility. The brother or sister is not enslaved to maintain “togetherness” (note the allusion of v. 5) at the expense of fidelity to the Lord.

Interestingly, douloo (under bondage) in verse 15 is, in the Greek Testament, a perfect tense form, dedoulotai. The perfect tense denotes a present state resulting from past action. Its force here is this: “was not bound [past action], and is not bound [present state].” The sense of the verse thus is:

Yet if (assuming such should occur) the unbeliever separates himself, let him separate himself: the brother or sister was not [before the departure] and is not [now that the departure has occurred] enslaved ….

Whatever the “bondage” is, therefore, the Christian was not in it, even before the disgruntled spouse left. But the saint was married (and is) to him; hence, the bondage is not the marriage!

Let the reader substitute the word “marriage” for “bondage,” giving the full force to the perfect tense (i.e., “has not been married, and is not married”) and the fallacy of viewing the bondage as the marriage itself will be apparent.

First Corinthians 7:15 does not expand upon the Savior’s teaching with reference to divorce and remarriage, as much as some wish that it were so.

For those who want to believe that Paul does indeed affirm that the marriage has been severed i.e., they are no longer One Flesh, please ask yourself the following questions:

a)    Why does Paul in verse 11 tell the departing spouse to ‘remain single’, and or ‘reconcile’ with her husband…  But then contradicts himself in verse 15?

b)     Why would Paul say only “death” can sever the marital bond?  But then say ‘separation’ does the same thing?

c)     Why did Jesus say Divorce is NOT permitted, but then His Apostles give all kinds of exceptions?

Finally, the Word of God does not contradict.  Jesus tells us Divorce is not possible; Jesus and Paul tell us only “death” can sever the marital bond.  Why does the church insist on telling us that Jesus and Paul didn’t mean what they said???

In the End, Marriage is a Natural Law. This Natural Law is created through Sexual Intercourse. Sexual intercourse is the vehicle by which two flesh become one. “Divorce” is a Legal Tool. Divorce does not occur in Nature. It is a man made tradition, which is Subjective, not Objective.

Only the Death of the man, allows a woman to take a second man/husband.

God’s Natural Law of Marriage and The ERRONEOUS Marriage Covenant

Leave a reply

When Christianity attempts to define Scriptural marriage, an ill-perceived and ill-conceived concept is attached to it that is consistently and erroneously advocated by the church. That concept is the so-called “marriage covenant” (vows stated by the couple at their wedding), which is valid only by the presence of human witnesses. This farcical concept extolled by Christianity as a requirement for the existence and validation of a God approved marriage is preposterous and absolutely unbiblical.

I think the best way for me to proceed is to first describe an actual Scriptural marital covenant.

So, how does the covenant fit within marriage for a Biblical Christian?

When covenants of Ceremonial/Procedural Marriage were exercised in the era of the Israelites, it was a binding agreement between a man and another man for the marriage of his VIRGIN daughter. This was the only time a covenant was implemented. Plain examples of this procedure and purpose are illustrated throughout the Old Testament and vaguely alluded to twice in the New Testament. In the Old Testament, the governance of these binding agreements was inscribed in Israelite legislation. The legislation, deduced from Scripture, prescribed no insertion of any required contents, but primarily governed what was to be done if a girl was taken sexually without a covenant or any violation of its contents, as well as the principles inherent based on the marital law of God. All covenants of marriage were of the same purpose – acquiring, mostly through some expense, a pure bride for marriage. Yes, this is how women were generally bought and sold for marrying. It was the way of men after the Rebellion* of man in the Old Testament, and to a degree carried over into the New Testament. (*Romans 5:12)

Once the terms of the agreement (covenant) were fulfilled, the couple were considered husband and wife by covenant (espousal), which, generally, the maiden at a prescribed time would be delivered (given) to the purchaser’s dwelling (bedchamber) for them to make a marriage (sexual intimacy). Once this was done, she now no longer was his wife by covenant, but his wife by marriage i.e., the Joining of Two Flesh into One, with the celebration afterward. Flesh with flesh. A man is now a husband and a woman, a wife.

Now, what must be understood is that marriage i.e, the joining of flesh, occurred even without a covenant existing. It is very clear in Scripture that covenants had nothing to do with making a God joined marriage. It was strictly a procedure of espousal giving lawful rights to a father to decide who would be allowed to marry his daughter for her benefit and/or his benefit.

If a man took a maiden (a virgin), (not by rape, which is described in Deut. 22:25) without a covenant with her father, joining himself to her (sexual intimacy), there was a law dealing with that. The law stated that the man had to pay an automatic 50 shekels of silver to the father for this infringement, because his actions violated the father’s rights and authority over his daughter (Deuteronomy 22:28&29). This appears to be “the dowry of virgins” noted in Exodus 22:16&17. Verse 17 does not insinuate, as many suppose, that a father could keep his daughter from the man to be his wife, but rather, maximum compensation was to be paid by law, if the father failed to agree to take less or just “give” her to him.

Again, many assume this verse to insinuate that the father can refuse and keep her from the man from having her at all. This is wrong for two reasons: 1. If he didn’t give her to him, she, no longer a virgin, would unlikely ever be accepted by a man, and additionally forfeit any opportunity of receiving a dowry for her, because of her impurity. She was this man’s wife, period. 2. It is commanded in Deuteronomy 22:29 that the man must accept (bear responsibility for) her as his wife and can never put her away (Bill of Divorcement) all his days. In other words, a marriage i.e., the joining of flesh between them had already been made without the covenant. Isn’t that amazing!

There are other ample examples in Scripture illustrating the truth that a Biblical marriage did NOT occur through a covenant, as is taught by Christianity.

So, something needs to be observed here in the illustration I just presented and all others found in the Scriptures: These covenants were not at all what the Christian church labels marriage covenants to be today. There was never a covenant or any vow made between the man and woman. It was always an agreement between the man and the father for acquisition of the woman. Once sold, she didn’t have much to say about it. Upon the conditions being satisfied within the covenant, she immediately became his espoused wife by law i.e., Israelite Law, but not a married wife, and the covenant did not govern that espousal. At a time determined by the espoused husband, they went into the bedchamber and were married there after it by the joining of two flesh into one. From the point of the espousal, the covenant was history, unless he found her not to be a virgin after going in to marry her – thus breaking the Law of Deuteronomy 22:14. Beyond this, the covenant had no bearing on their marriage. Their marital union was now legislatively governed, which addressed marital infidelity, except in the case of the issuance of a Bill of Divorcement.

Christianity promoting of the so-called marriage covenant is not Scriptural and most certainly does not make a Scriptural marriage. If two people, qualified to be married by God, make vows to one another, then, that is all they are. Please hear me on this. The vows stated at anytime between a man and woman never, never, ever, ever truly govern their marriage – “Intent” is Subjective, not Objective. In a Scriptural marriage, where two become one flesh, the union is strictly governed by Scripture (void of being rewritten) and not the promises/vows made to each other. Sexual Intercourse is Objective in Fact; while “Intent” is Subjective in “feeling” and “opinion”. 

A fact needs to be understood as the reason for my last comment: The vows recited are irrelevant, because New Testament Scripture defines the obligations and commitments of each spouse within the marriage. It defines what makes it, what defiles it, the position/level/order of the man and woman in that marriage, along with instruction of conduct and disposition. Any vows made by the couple, cannot supersede, alter, or enhance Scriptural marital purity, instruction, and expectation. Christendom’s erroneous covenant distorts the truth that every part of a Biblical marriage is Biblically governed and regulated, with no other inputs. What does this mean? It means, for a Scriptural marriage to exist, covenants, ministers, vows, witnesses, civil or personal contracts/documents, rituals, etc. are unnecessary.

The bottom line is this: Marriage is in nature. None of those things I listed are required to be married before God. They are all unnatural. Just as you don’t need any of those man made devises or rituals to be a mother or a father – to create and bring into the world a new living soul.

The most important responsibility of the Scriptural Christian is to make sure that you and, as possible, the one you join yourself with (sexually) are Scripturally qualified to do so, to avoid fornication. I believe it is important that your other should understand how a marriage is made, and the consequences of violating it. That is all there is to it and nothing else is required other than a male and female to make it happen.

Every Christian needs to know these principles of marriage.

God Told Hosea To Do What?  By Edward Ridenour

Leave a reply

In addition to the unfortunate Scriptural misinterpretation, by the church, in believing that the church is the bride of Christ, which influences false perceptions of Biblical marriage and fornication, there is another erred perception, which does the same. This horrific perception is that God in the book of Hosea had instructed the Prophet Hosea to marry (sexually intimate) a prostitute. In my view, those who believe this theory have seriously failed to consider God’s holy character and His Word. It is a theory that truly displays a lack of understanding in Biblical marriage and its sanctity, which He designed, as well as the consequences of its violation.

The church has used this prophetic book to support their perception of the church being the bride of Christ and that Christ is constantly forgiving the church for its sins, past and present, which Hosea symbolized by marrying Gomer and taking her back. This is based upon the interpretation that Hosea supposedly married a prostitute (Gomer) on Yahweh’s command and, then, she continued in her whoredom, which Hosea forgives, taking her back, works with her, and continued to be a husband to her, without any consequence.

This incorrect theory, then, is applied to the attitude of conduct, which they say should be displayed within a Christian marriage of a man and woman when one of them commits fornication against the other. The innocent spouse is to be like Hosea (Christ-like – forgiving), and take their fornicating spouse back if they repent, even though Gomer never showed any indication of repentance.

Although they wouldn’t admit it, this Scripture is used by many, similar to the bride of Christ idea, to brow-beat the innocent spouse into taking the violating spouse back, condemning them as not being Christ-like if they don’t. Others use it as a justification in taking their fornicating spouse back. Anyone who has read my book “It’s Good For A Man Not To Touch A Woman” or my articles in this blog know the reason why this is a huge mistake.

I have already outlined my reasons for the church being in error in believing that the bride of Christ is the church and how applying that theory in the dealings of marriage and fornication is damnable. Now I will outline my reasons why the church is in total error in their interpretation of this Scripture and how it fosters a wrong perception, and must not be applied to Biblical marriage precepts.

I concede to the premise that the book of Hosea reveals God’s love, mercy, forgiveness, and redemption. This is evident, but must be put in a proper perspective.

The gist of the message and marriage to Gomer was mostly to prophesy God’s view of His relationship He and Israel have had within their union from the beginning to the present. It also points to the promises of hope for Israel in the near future, and to the redemption that would come, further out, to all men through the work of Jesus Christ – those circumcised in the heart by faith. Howbeit, until then, there was going to be horrendous judgment and punishment upon Israel and Judah for their wickedness. As one commentator described it “This picture is one of a loving husband who yearns desperately to have a faithful wife. Israel, however, will have none of it, and the consequences of its sins must play themselves out, although hope for the future is never lost.”

Isn’t it interesting that these aspects of judgment and punishment (consequences), which is no small percentage of the prophet’s message, never seem to get much attention by those who use Hosea to support the church as the bride of Christ, nor as an advocated mindset to be exercised by an innocent spouse as the rule when fornicated against by their unfaithful spouse. They only seem to hear what they want to hear and see what they want to see. This, along with a lack of knowledge, makes for some false doctrines and applications to life, particularly marriage and its violation.

Without writing a whole commentary on the book of Hosea, I will just point out some of the main points where errors in interpretation are vivid:

Firstly, the relationship that God had with Israel was not in the form of husband/wife. Actually, God’s wife according to Scripture was Jerusalem, which was in Judah at this time in history. Neither is the prophecy of Hosea an instruction on how to deal with an errant spouse. The marriage to Gomer only symbolized God’s marriage (connection, union) to Israel in His oneness with them through the covenant of the law. The oneness He initiates with the church today is through the covenant (redemption) of Jesus Christ. This relationship is not husband/wife either.

On this earth, marriage (the oneness generated by two, through sexual intimacy) between a man and woman depicts, most distinctly, the oneness connection that God’s people experience with Him. We are married (joined) to Him, yet not as His wife, but as His body, like a wife is to her husband. It is a holy connection. Once born again, the church (made up of each member) is connected to Him as His body through His Spirit, once born again, as is also the wife connected to her husband as his body once they are sexually intimate. However, if you have read my book or articles you will know that both of these unions can be fornicated.

The earthly marriage union illustrates, for the lack of a better word, our oneness with Christ. Both of these institutions of oneness are a mystery. That is because each union is enacted by God Himself and is not seen by the human eye nor implemented by man.

Secondly, to think that God would entreat a prophet to commit an abominable act of fornication by being sexually intimate with a prostitute is ridiculous. Only those who: 1) Have no respect for God’s holy and righteous character, i.e., “…to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither come it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin” (Jeremiah 32:35, KJV) and “Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man” (James 1:13); 2) have no respect and knowledge to how horrific the sinful act of fornication is bodily and as idolatry could presume such an atrocity.

Should we believe that God would direct a holy man into committing this abomination (fornication) with a prostitute (see my previous articles or book) for the purpose of reproving the abominations of others? How could Hosea be the instrument for exposing and condemning the sin of Israel when He would be just as guilty as they? Where is the sense and wisdom in this, as the means for Israel to change? How does one marry a prostitute and then condemn her afterward for being a prostitute, considering it shameful?

This crazy idea is also like certain so-called ministries today where one spouse commits fornication against the other spouse, are taken back, and, then, set out to tell others that their marriage is now better than before. Anymore, to have a viable marriage ministry one must commit the sin of fornication beforehand. Then you are qualified to be a help to others. “Let us sin, so that grace may abound!” “Let’s all commit fornicated affairs so our marriages will be better!”   This is a sensual philosophy of the world being spewed out by the church, which even many unbelievers will not accept. Shouldn’t the ones who are faithful to their spouses be the ones who are true ministers of marriage, especially to unbelievers? Hosea was the true sinless minister. He represented and exemplified the true, righteous, and faithful God.

For God to direct Hosea to commit this defiling act would have been the most unrighteous thing for a righteous God to do. The holy prophet wouldn’t be so holy any longer, and would be just as worthy of condemnation. I ask… would the church be so ready to accept God commanding a prophet to commit homosexuality, instead of adultery, for the purpose of instruction? I don’t believe so! I would hope not!

The reason I made the claim as I just did is because Gomer was not a prostitute when Hosea married her. The book of Hosea itself makes this fact very clear for these reasons:

1) They, who make the claim that Gomer was a prostitute when Hosea married her, read Hosea 1:2&3 erringly. It is not saying to go take a wife that is already in the sin of whoredom, but to go take a wife among people who are and are the children of whoredoms (idolaters), who will later become a prostitute and have illegitimate children, as Israel had prostituted itself and produced illegitimate (idolatrous, lawless) children. For Israel “hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.”

2) Verse three says, “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim…”  When one understands Biblical marriage, it is understood that if Gomer had had other men, she would not have been referred to as “the daughter of” her father, but as a man’s wife or a harlot. To identify her as “the daughter of” was to indicate that she was still a virgin under her father’s authority within his house. She had not yet known a man. It is this virgin that Hosea covenanted for and married (sexual intimacy).

3) Verse three is also backed up by Hosea 2:7 saying, “…I will go and return to my first husband…” Her first husband was Hosea to whom she would return. Otherwise, if Hosea wasn’t her first husband who would be? Who was her second, third, fourth… husbands? If you know Biblical marriage, like I have been teaching, you’ll know how to answer this. It speaks of her sexual intimacies as husbands and not through covenant, vows, or documents. It’s a similar situation as when Jesus encountered the woman at the well and said to her, “For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now hast is not thy husband…” (John 4:18). Just as God was the first for Israel and Israel the first for God, so was Hosea the first for Gomer and Gomer the first for Hosea.

4) Israel was not defiled when God chose and formed a nation of Him, “When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt” (Hosea 11:1). Israel was a young innocent child when God called (married) him out of Egypt, not a defiled fornicated one. Israel was unformed in Egypt and, then, formed and nurtured by God when called out and given His law. Israel, the nation, fornicated itself afterward; just as Gomer did. “I found Isreal like grapes in the wilderness; I saw your fathers as the first ripe in the fig tree at her first time: but they went to Baal-peor, and separated themselves unto that shame; and their abominations were according as they loved” (Hosea 9:10).

5) The first child Jezreel was Hosea’s son before Gomers adultery. He represented the righteous seed that was and would be sown in Israel. The other children Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi were children from her fornications. This is seen in Hosea 2:1-5, where he says, “Say ye [Jezreel] unto your brethren, Ammi; and to your sisters, Ruhamah. Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…for they be the children of whoredoms. For their mother hath played the harlot; she that conceived them hath done shamefully…”

Note: How could God say that Gomer conceived these children, Lo-ammi and Lo-ruhamah, shamefully and yet not declare the same concerning Jezreel, if she was a harlot before Hosea took her? Wouldn’t it have been just as shameful for him to have taken her as a harlot, also? Does a covenant or a marriage certificate, as some might say would make a difference, cause a harlot to not be a harlot anymore, Biblically? Do these procedures and documents wipe away all fornications (adutleries)? Does God’s Word depict such things? The reason there was no wrong with Hosea taking Gomer and bearing Jezreel is because, when he was conceived the union was a true marriage, not fornication.

Thirdly, many regard what is said in Hosea 3:1 signals Hosea taking Gomer back to be his wife. Well, interpreting verse 1 as meaning this is not at all correct. I can only say, for one to draw such a conclusion originates from the misunderstanding of Biblical marriage, as well as not acknowledging factual declarations from the book of Hosea itself. This verse itself is rife with signaling that he does not take her back as a wife.

Here is what verse 1 says, “Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel , who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.”

Here are the reasons to dispute those who say Hosea took Gomer back:

1) Gomer is referred to as an “adulteress” and not as his wife. Romans 7:2,3 says, “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth…So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married [sexually intimate] to another man, she shall be called an adulteress…” This means she no longer bears the label or distinction as a wife, but now bears the distinction of “adulteress.” An adulteress is not a wife of one man, but of more than one and, therefore, a fornicator of marriage. The husband cannot take her back. I already indicated how that Hosea was her first husband. Hosea, her original husband, is now no longer her husband. Their holy marriage (union) had been defiled (made illegitimate) by her fornication (adultery) with her “lovers [sexual].” The “love” God entreats Hosea to now show is not sexual in nature. That is the perversion of our culture, adopted by the church.

2) Hosea was commanded to love her and care for her, even though she was no longer his wife, indicated by the title of “adulteress.” This estranged marital relationship between them, because of her fornicated affairs, is compared to the same relationship, which God had with Israel at this time. Israel’s fornication is declared in the latter part of verse 1 above saying, “…the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.” This means the relationship that Israel had with God has been put asunder through their idolatrous fornication, although not as a husband/wife, but as a God and His people. He still loved them, but it would be an estranged relationship. He would care for them, yet, they would not benefit from all that they had when they were His alone. They would be “…without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, and without teraphim” (Hosea 3:4).

3) Hosea emphatically stated that Gomer was not his wife saying, “Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhama, Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband…” (Hosea 2:1-3). He is telling Jezreel, his blood son from Gomer when she was his wife, to tell his half brother and half sister that their mother, who had them by another man or other men through her adulteries, is now no longer his wife. He also declares that for her to save herself (“Plead with your mother, plead“), she must stop living in fornication, if she doesn’t want to face harsh judgment. The only answer when fornication is committed is to repent and live celibate. This is the only way to not commit fornication again.

4) For the Scripture to declare that Gomer would “go back to her first husband” and Hosea to declare that “she is not my wife and I am not her husband” indicates that she had been put-away by Hosea. Therefore, for God to instruct Hosea to take her back would be forcing him to commit a declared abomination of violating the forbidden law of not taking back a spouse who was remarried after being put-away. So, according to the church, God causes Hosea to defile his self twice with this whorish woman through acts that were an abomination before God. How pathetic.

He couldn’t take her again or he would fornicate himself with her. What Hosea actually did resembled the sacrifice of God caring for Israel at the present time, and yet not having them as a people or a nation that are His in a holy way. The covenant of Christ and His Spirit would eventually change this situation including both Judahite and Gentile i.e., the Nations – declared in Hosea 2:14-23. This is the new and intended Israel – the descendants of Abraham by faith.

Therefore, in chapter 3:2 the love that is shown by Hosea to Gomer is to purchase her as a man would purchase a prostitute, providing for her needs, yet not joining himself to her in a sexual way as he did when he married her. Through this possession, she is to stay celibate and he also commits to staying celibate along with her in order to care for her. He sacrifices both his finances and his physical sexual needs for her well-being. This is the true love story of sacrifice that people should be writing about.

I will close with these two Scripture verses:

“…therefore the people that doth not understand shall fall” (Hosea 4:14);

“Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them? for the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them: but the transgressors shall fall therein” (Hosea 14:9).

There is forgiveness, but however, the sin of fornication produces consequences.

……………………………………… END ………………………………………………………………………………………….

Editor —  The BOLD above is what I agree with 100%.  The author draws a few conclusions that I have not yet  studied in full detail.   Please study thoughtfully and carefully. Anything that is not ‘bold’ above does not necessarily mean that I disagree with Ridenour’s opinion.  I just haven’t had the time yet to fully study his opinion.

I simply post this article as just one more ‘proofs’ of the ridiculous belief/claim that a non-virgin girl/woman is eligible for a righteous marriage to a different man.  Anytime I challenge men and women who have violated the principle/law of the necessity of Virginity in marriage, their likely first response is to say arrogantly, “Well…..Hosea married a prostitute, so there, case closed.”

Gomer was indeed a virgin when Hosea ‘took’ her as his wife.    The passage Hosea 2:7 is proof of that.  The word ‘husband’ is simply a translation of ‘man’.  Using the word ‘husband’ is no great violation, but, I can anticipate my brother coming back with the argument that verse 7 simply proves that Hosea was Gomer’s first husband — not that Gomer was not a virgin.  But the passage could easily and should read — I will go and return to my first man.  Meaning — her first lover.  The Scriptures tell us that when a virgin girl has sex with a man she becomes ‘known’ by that man*.  If I were to play the devils advocate and argue my brother’s pov, he would suggest the word ‘first’ has no consequence.  If we are to take “first husband” literally, then we would have to conclude that Gomer took other husbands.  If Hosea was Gomer’s ‘first’ husband, then she would have had to take second, even third husbands.    But the Scriptures imply no such thing.  Gomer simply “whored” herself out — slept with other men — after Hosea.  She did not marry ‘ceremoniously’ other ‘husbands’ as my brother would have to INSIST is true in order for the passage to make any sense.

*”And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity.” Luke 2:36

“The woman was very beautiful, a virgin; no man had known her. She went down to the spring, filled her jar and came up again.” Genesis 24:16

For those who sleep at night with the comfort of believing Gomer was a non-virgin prior to her union to Hosea, as justification for their similar situation, are simply deceiving themselves and perverting the Character of God.

Their argument is “weak” at best, but yet these lovers of Self hold Gomer up as the standard for Christian Living.

Their second blasphemous attempt to justify their sin is to suggest the ‘Woman at the Well’ was also not a virgin when she “wed”; and or had multiple marriages in which Jesus approved.  The woman at the well is simply in violation of the marriage law described in Romans 7:2-3.  She is still “one flesh” with a man who is currently still living — i.e., still alive.  Not yet dead.  Only in “Death” is a woman released from the law of “One Flesh”.

What God recognizes as “Marriage” isn’t always what “man” recognizes.  This is not God’s fault!!!

When a virgin girl has sex with a man, she is now “one flesh” with that man.  God sees them “married” — i.e., Joined together as one flesh and only death will sever this union.

Whether man recognizes this same couple “man and wife” is not God’s responsibility.

If Gomer is the only “example” of a non-virgin woman having a husband and it be righteous ………..

Do I need to say more?

Not to mention, if Gomer was not a virgin — notice that God had to COMMAND Hosea to take her as a wife.  So, clearly, Hosea was instructed to do that which he knew was wrong.

It is very simple — Hosea and Gomer is Symbolic to Israel.  When God chose Abraham, He chose Abraham because Abraham was righteous.  “Israel” in the beginning was like a Virgin Bride.  But what did she do?  She whored herself out to “other lovers” — which is exactly what Gomer did.  Gomer was a Virgin upon her union to Hosea.  She THEN whored herself out as a Symbol of what Israel did.