The Logically And Biblically Egalitarian Nature Of Engagement

One does not even have to look outside the Torah itself to find overt acknowledgement of the fact that if a woman is engaged to a man, the man is engaged to the women, and in light of the metaphysical equality of Genesis 1:26-27 (and 5:1-2) and the non sequitur and contradictory nature of the alternative, of course there is no difference in the sexual morality of an engaged man having sex with a woman outside of the relationship and the opposite that is mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:23-24.  As I will tackle below, the identical nature of engagement in both directions is true by logical necessity and thus the Bible would have to be consistent with this for it to even be possibly true.  It is just that it does from start (Genesis 2:23-24) to finish affirm that the status of engagement and the marriage to follow is egalitarian.

In the words of Deuteronomy 20:7, men were/are pledged to women just like the other way around.  No, the Torah does not demand male soldiers or prohibit women from direct military service here or elsewhere (see also Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32), but it does say that any male soldier who is engaged but not married can be excused from fighting; after the legal marriage arrives, spouses are furthermore not to be given military service or other major public tasks for a year so that they can bring happiness to their new wife, or by logical extension husband (Deuteronomy 24:5).  The statements in Deuteronomy 20:1-9 are not prescriptive whatsoever of any gender stereotypes or roles.  Song of Songs 6:3 likewise says, in the words of the woman who loves and is loved, that she is her beloved's and he is hers.  There is no sexist ownership in one direction or the other hinted at here and no such thing taught in the Torah, though the two do belong to each other on one level.

1 Corinthians 7:36 also addresses men who are engaged to marry women, while 7:1-5 very clearly teaches that in marriage, there is mutual obligation to submit and pursue only consensual interpersonal sexual acts.  It says the husband and wife "own" each other.  This is written by Paul, who says over and over, contrary to the church's conventional anti-theonomy, that Mosaic Law is righteous and enduring in its perfect, universally obligatory status (Acts 24:14, Romans 7:7, 12, 1 Corinthians 9:7-12, 2 Corinthians 13:1, 1 Timothy 1:8-11, 5:17-21).  Just as Jesus and other New Testament figures affirm it (Matthew 5:7-19, 15:1-20, Mark 7:1-13, Luke 16:16-17, Hebrews 2:2), so does Paul, and yet God does not change (Malachi 3:6, James 1:17).  What the New Testament teaches about the egalitarian nature of marriage (see also Ephesians 5:21) and by extension engagement is exactly what the Old Testament directly or indirectly teaches.  It is not that the Torah is sexist and the New Testament corrects or upholds this!

The Bible would not have to explicitly say that engagement is two-sided, however, for it to teach this (Genesis 1:26-27, one of the most important parts of the entire Bible, is of course relevant) or for it to be consistent with the fact that engagement is two-sided in itself.  Obviously, this is true by logical necessity even if a person or culture thinks that engagement and marriage are one-sided statuses.  For marital engagement to occur, two people must be engaged to each other, not just one to the other.  If one of them, regardless of gender, becomes pledged to the other, the same could only be true in the inverse direction.  The very nature of engagement is in this sense gender egalitarian no matter what falsities someone might hold to, even a person who is himself or herself engaged.  For the Bible to be logically possible, much less true, it would have to be consistent with these facts that as logical necessities are true independent of cultural recognition, Biblical acknowledgement, or subjective feelings and preferences.

Now, the Bible is consistent with them, and not just because it openly teaches that men are pledged/married to or belong to women no less than the other way around.  It would not have to directly state this for its doctrines to be consistent with these logical necessities (what a fool and insect someone is who thinks that a text has to directly say something to be consistent with it!).  In fact, it would have to plainly say otherwise for a passage like Deuteronomy 22:23-24 to be sexist in its treatment of marital engagement and the ethics of an engaged person having sex with someone they are not married/engaged to.  In the absence of any teaching that in itself--not as it seems to come across to a reader, but in the concepts it is actually putting forth--is articulated in a manner such as "It is sin for a man to rape someone, but not for a woman", even with no other textual context, logical equivalence by default would mean that the Bible is already egalitarian there.  What it directly says about marriage and engagement before legally finalized marriage is simply gender egalitarian as well.