Prostitution vs adultery

[Jason Cook]

It may be safer than marrying a woman who have unjustly divorced her husband. This may be true because in God's eyes she still belongs to her alive husband.

I absolutely agree. A repentant prostitute is preferable in every way to a lying, dishonest whore.

 

[Mark C]

...It is not an attack! I am having a calm discussion trying to tease out the nuances of a situation. You perceive it as an attack, become defensive, and under those circumstances no rational discussion is possible.

Excellent point.

This is indeed a good summary of your claims:

My views are very clear and have been clearly stated frequently, but to recap:
- All sex creates one flesh
- One flesh is, exactly as the words literally means, something physical. An actual physical change in the flesh. It is not something we can break, it is a permanent physical state.

I'm not sure that I agree, in the sense that the proof is perhaps "nebulous." Are you implying -- as some have -- the belief that DNA changes (for example) occur during intercourse? Or is there more? Or something different.

The 'psychological' change in women, I contend, is clear.

- We are only to become one flesh with our own women. Women we have an agreement with (and with her father as appropriate) that she is exclusively ours.
- Becoming one flesh with an available woman without such an agreement creates an obligation to make one.
- Becoming one flesh with a prostitute is an abomination.
- Becoming one flesh with a woman who belongs to another man is a sin worthy of death.
- Death alone dissolves one flesh, because it is physical, and death destroys the body.

OK, I have no problem, in general, with that part of the list.

- Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.

Here I have a question regarding your terminology. Obviously you distinguish what you call "one flesh," with "marriage" - whatever the heck that means. I contend that it (marriage) involves Covenant, following offer and acceptance, and then 'consummation' in a physical act.

Whatever 'psychosexual/spiritual/DNA' changes then follow - even if 'irreversible' - may survive the dissolution of said 'marriage' (as per Deut. 24:1-3) - but are not identical WITH the 'marriage' itself; just a consequence that the subsequent "divorcee" takes with her, even if she "becomes another man's isha."

Agreed? Or is there another element?

 

[Mark C]

This is put in a separate comment, because I see it as a different issue:

Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.

OK. So, gotta ask.

I contend (obviously) that a man who has more than one wife becomes "one flesh" with each of them. I see how that would have clear physical manifestation, in, for example, progeny. But:

I prefer the understanding that we are to, as a family, under my headship, and ultimately His, seek to become "echad," in Him. That, undeniably, has a "spiritualized" aspect that I do not deny, and indeed, joyfully accept.

But I not sure how it fits your model.

 

[The Revolting Man]

For those who still don't get it:



Duh, and double duh. They were betrothed, she was committed to Yitzak, even though they had never met; had any other man slept with her it would have been adultery.

But, as I have said, and you seem to have denied until now, the precedent is in the final verse, and describes PRECISELY what you previously claimed you couldn't see, and pretended not to see as 'precedent': (and I contend the SEQUENCE is important)

And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah's tent, and took [laqach] Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.

The Covenant, arranged by the un-named 'good and faithful servant,' in the name of Abraham, which was offered and accepted (thus betrothal) was consummated, and the result was a marriage. The first described in such detail in the Book.

And the word "one flesh" never appears. So what? You won't find a better precedent for it, and succinct summary of the process, than v. 67.


It's so "eye rollingly stupid" you should be ashamed for even being that idiotically blind to the point!!!

Is it JUST POSSIBLE that YHVH Himself can teach more than one principle in a single story?

Like:

- what a 'good and faithful servant' looks like. (Is there a reason He never names that servant in the whole story???)
- what 'offer and acceptance' in a marriage look like. IMMEDIATELY AFTER He just showed us what "offer and acceptance" look like in a land contract, and the "first recorded deed" in human history (the cave of Macpelah.)
- what 'agency' (power of attorney) is. What it means to "come in the name of" a principal; in this case, Abraham, to effect a contract.
- what makes a 'marriage'

and even subtle things, like - did Rivkah have a choice? Absolutely - and this precedent makes it clear. She not only 'accepted,' she confirmed it by deed, first when she got on the camel and left her home, then when she consummated the marriage. No one forced her to come.

This story is so important, so central, and teaches SO many fundamental principles that are literally CENTRAL to the entirety of "English Common Law" that I have trouble wrapping my head around the level of ignorance it takes to deny what it is teaching.




Do what you want. I can't make the blind see. But if you ignore His stories, His parables, you have a pretty pitiful grasp of Scripture.

So, why then did you make this asinine claim?


Yeah, which is it? (I don't care - that was rhetorical. I think you just make it up to suit your ego, and deny it when it doesn't.)

So you’re just running wild in this thread claiming the opposite of whatever else anyone is law says? You as usual will not a firm stand on anything? You will just claim that everything is everything and anything? As long as you can sneer at someone and wonder they’re not as smart as you?

If Isaac and Rebecca’s marriage started at the tent after he took her then nothing that happened before that is indicative of anything pertaining to the formation of the marriage.

I do care how often you accuse me of being a willfully stupid, blind Nazi; if the marriage began and “her took her and she became his woman” then there was no need for the camels, the journey, the gifts, the servant, the brother (or the mother, she was a part of the negotiations too. Is that part normative? I bet you’ll deny to the heavens that the mother has a part to play even though in your perfect precedent she did) or even the veil; were necessary part of forming the marriage.

Rebecca became Isaac’s woman after he took her her. Everything else was just logistics.

 

[The Revolting Man]

This is something you have invented yourself and are adding to the Bible.

This is an attack and you know it.

 

[Mark C]

Crap. You are like talking to a rock.

Edit: OK, I stand corrected. A rock just listens.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is not something we can break, it is a permanent physical state

That is untrue because you can lawfully move onto another one flesh while a previous one flesh is living. This would be the whole point of Christ teaching about divorce, as He expressly says when he ties one flesh to divorce. Samuel, I am begging you please stop being boring. One fl sh is in diametric opposition to divorce. What’s the point of a divorce if it’s not somehow effecting the one flesh? Why does God even bother to write such nonsensical gobbledygook and why would you waste time reading it if you think it’s that silly?

Women we have an agreement with (and with her father as appropriate) that she is exclusively ours.

Where is this in scripture?!?!? Is this something you’re adding? Otherwise surely you have some scripture to back it up?

Becoming one flesh with an available woman without such an agreement creates an obligation to make one.

And where is this in scripture? Is this something f else you’ve added!?!?

Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.

It is spiritual. Are you implying that sex is a purely physical act with no spiritual significance? I know you don’t believe that but that’s what you’re saying.

I'm just reading the exact same verses completely literally, recognizing that "flesh" is a word that truly means "flesh".

No you’re not. You have absolutely added every element of what you’ve claimed here and you know you have. Those things are not in the verses that I’ve quoted and debated ad nauseum now.

Now you have made a very interesting claim with the idea that “flesh” just means flesh and nothing more. It’s a claim you contradict by saying that it’s a permanent state that persists even after the physical act itself has ceased, if it was just flesh then the one flesh would absolutely end when the sex act ended. But intellectual consistency had never been a factor in this debate.

But let’s set that aside, how is that not a version of the gnostic hersies? You’ve completely separated spirit from flesh. That can’t be accurate. You can’t be claiming that. Are you?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Crap. You are like talking to a rock.

Edit: OK, I stand corrected. A rock just listens.

Mark you don’t say anything. There’s nothing to listen to. You just talk. You never take a stand. You never make declarative statements. You can’t just say; “I believe a marriage is a process that begins with a negotiation between a man and his prospective father in law and that is finalized when the man completes the contract and has sex with his wife. I believe this because a Christ denier told me that it’s demonstrated in the story or Isaac and Rebecca.”

How hard is that? I did it in two sentences. Why do you have to subject everyone to thousands of words dripping with scorn and never actually make the case? You do nothing but hint and infer and suggest but only if you can insult someone.

Your idea is wrong. It’s silly; which is why you do everything you can obscure your belief. You know how vulnerable it is and being contradicted terrifies you.

So, now that your stance has finally, succinctly and clearly been laid out for the first time ever, you’re welcome, would you like to defend it or would you prefer to slink off sulkingly?

 

[Mark C]

I said you aren't worth talking to, and you demonstrated why. I don't need to write anything anyway, you make it up, and then pat yourself on the back for your hubris.

Anybody actually interested in the topic has plenty to read.

Edit:

You never make declarative statements.

There are a number directly above. Here's another one: You aren't worth wasting keystrokes on.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I said you aren't worth talking to, and you demonstrated why. I don't need to write anything anyway, you make it up, and then pat yourself on the back for your hubris.

Anybody actually interested in the topic has plenty to read.

Edit:

There are a number directly above. Here's another one: You aren't worth wasting keystrokes on.

So you choose slink off sulkingly?

 

[Maddog]

I will say that "flesh" means exactly that: flesh and bones and blood. ALWAYS!

 

[FollowingHim]

- One flesh is, exactly as the words literally means, something physical. An actual physical change in the flesh. It is not something we can break, it is a permanent physical state.

I'm not sure that I agree, in the sense that the proof is perhaps "nebulous." Are you implying -- as some have -- the belief that DNA changes (for example) occur during intercourse? Or is there more? Or something different.

The 'psychological' change in women, I contend, is clear.

On this, I take God's word for granted. He says they become "one flesh", and the original words translated "flesh", both Hebrew and Greek, quite literally mean "meat". The closest similar phrase to this is "my bone and my flesh", which is used various times to describe a close relative. I take "one flesh" to mean that, in some way, the two become one (echad / united) physically in the same sort of way and to the same extent that close relatives are "one bone and flesh".

I do not base this contention on science, I base it solely on scripture, taking it to mean what it literally says.

As science advances, we get glimpses of what this means. Firstly, we know that a large portion of our bodies are the microbiome, and that microbes are exchanged in sex. We can easily conclude that the microbiome portion of the "flesh" of two sex partners will become "one" over time, as microbes are transferred in both directions. Secondly, we know that women retain some DNA from their sex partners, as described by others. But these are not the proof of the concept, nor are they full understanding of it. They are simply glimpses of something God knows in full, and which we see "as through a glass darkly", but with increasing clarity as science advances. I hope one day to understand it fully, but can accept it on faith today without needing it fully explained by science.

- Any statement that one flesh can be dissolved by decision of man, or by becoming one flesh with another person, is to spiritualise it and deny its physical reality, inventing a new concept and applying the label of "one flesh" to it.

Here I have a question regarding your terminology. Obviously you distinguish what you call "one flesh," with "marriage" - whatever the heck that means. I contend that it (marriage) involves Covenant, following offer and acceptance, and then 'consummation' in a physical act.

I am deliberately not even using the word "marriage", but rather discussing the underlying elements that scripture actually talks about. I won't comment on what "marriage" involves because that is where the discussion always breaks down. It's sadly really clear and simple until someone uses that word.

Like how salvation is really simple also - we know that we are commanded to confess Jesus as Lord, and be baptised, to be saved. But the moment someone starts to define precisely when "salvation" occurs - at a sinners prayer, at baptism, at confirmation or some other such event - we get all lost in the weeds with interdenominational argument. Usually pointlessly, because we all agree if you just do both you're saved.

Whatever 'psychosexual/spiritual/DNA' changes then follow - even if 'irreversible' - may survive the dissolution of said 'marriage' (as per Deut. 24:1-3) - but are not identical WITH the 'marriage' itself; just a consequence that the subsequent "divorcee" takes with her, even if she "becomes another man's isha."

Agreed? Or is there another element?

Yes. If having sex makes physical changes in the body, that's just a fact of life. For one thing it explains why we shouldn't have sex with a prostitute - you're uniting with a cesspool, and that cesspool will physically change your body to be a little bit of a cesspool also. Gross.

If sex physically changes the body, just having sex with someone else can't undo those changes. Rather, it's going to cumulate more changes on top of them. Obviously there is a time and a place where having sex with an additional man is entirely acceptable - e.g. a widow remarrying - but it doesn't undo whatever changes occurred to her body as a result of sex with the first husband.

If "one flesh" can be magically completely dissolved just by going to be with someone else, then it is spiritual and was never "flesh" to begin with. If that were the case it would have been called "one spirit", which is something else.

Now you have made a very interesting claim with the idea that “flesh” just means flesh and nothing more. It’s a claim you contradict by saying that it’s a permanent state that persists even after the physical act itself has ceased, if it was just flesh then the one flesh would absolutely end when the sex act ended. But intellectual consistency had never been a factor in this debate.

I have no idea how you got that from what I said. I am saying that sex causes a one flesh state. Sex makes changes to the body. Those changes, whatever they are, persist after sex, because they are real physical changes to the body (even if we do not fully understand what they are).

But let’s set that aside, how is that not a version of the gnostic hersies? You’ve completely separated spirit from flesh. That can’t be accurate. You can’t be claiming that. Are you?

Certainly not. I am recognising that the spirit is a different thing to the flesh - that is obvious and orthodox. But as I understand it Gnosticism claims that the flesh is evil and the spirit is good. That is an entirely different idea that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I am saying. Read what I am actually saying.

 

[MemeFan]

Her case is the 'primary precedent' for the idea of 'Levirate marriage,' and - in particular - the chief example of a 'kinsman-redeemer' prior to the Messiah Himself. But it doesn't explicitly tell us about the consummation (nor need it) - but it does tell us the result, in the lineage of Messiah.

But case is also precedent and death case against all who claim starting marriage requires priest, state permit or contract signing. All these are missing.

 

[MemeFan]

Are you really drinking the Zec Kool-Aid? Or was that an attempt at understated British-style humor?

I'm on Tom Shirpley Man and Woman in Biblical Law. Zec is closest to him.

The point of "agency" (and the ESSENCE of the vital concept of what it means to "come in the Name of" Somebody) is to DO THE WILL of the One Who sent the Servant. Get it? How much of Scipture does THAT clarify?

90%+ don't have servant and won't never be able to afford. So this isn't good precedent for most people. If poin is to go extreme lenght to find righteous wife, then it's good.

The rest of us can - and always have been able to - contract in our own name, on behalf of ourselves. And for those that don't deny the point of stories in Scripture as precedent - THAT question has already been answered, in the story that immediately preceded Yitzak and Rivkah:

Read Genesis 23. It's just as detailed, and also teaches more than one principle in a single story:

- Offer and acceptance (and note how Abraham gets the owner to MAKE the offer, then immediately ACCEPTS)
- ...in front of witnesses to the contract.
- and there is "compensation" in the form of silver, the 'money of the merchant,'
- and the first recorded land deed.

He didn't take it as a gift. This was the ONLY land that was truly Abraham's during his lifetime, of the entire Promise.


Every element of "Contract Law 101" is present in this single story. It is THE precedent for 'contract' in our Common Law history.

Except if you can enter into marriage just by sex, then written contract, witnessness (unless couple like being watched) and compensation aren't needed. So classic contract law doesn't apply. If fact it will cloud your mind because you search for elements isn't aren't needed.

Where are contract signing, witnessness ans compesation in Ruth's case?

 

[frederick]

A man has no right to a sexual relationship with any woman other than the one belonging to him. For a man to have a sexual relationship with a woman not belonging to him contravenes God's Law. The sexual act does not make her the man's to have. Exodus 22:16, If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. Because she wasn't his to have, the man had no right to a sexual relationship with her. She didn't become his because of the sexual act, her father still must give her to him.

Rape law proves a man has no right to a woman who is not already his. Deut. 22:28-29, If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days. Because she was not his woman to have, he shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver. It is then she shall be his wife.

Don't have a sexual relationship with any woman who is not yours to have. If she's a prostitute, you pay. If you force her, it's rape and you pay. If she is another man's, it's adultery and you pay (a very high price!). If she's single and it's right for her to become yours, make her yours then enjoy.

A man does not make a woman his by having sex with her.

 

[FollowingHim]

OK. So, gotta ask.

I contend (obviously) that a man who has more than one wife becomes "one flesh" with each of them. I see how that would have clear physical manifestation, in, for example, progeny. But:

I prefer the understanding that we are to, as a family, under my headship, and ultimately His, seek to become "echad," in Him. That, undeniably, has a "spiritualized" aspect that I do not deny, and indeed, joyfully accept.

But I not sure how it fits your model.

If a man becomes physically united (one) with each wife, in some physical way (transfer of microbiome, transfer of DNA, or some other yet unknown mechanism), then over time as his body becomes more united with theirs, and theirs with his, they too will grow more like each other in a second-hand physical manner. For instance, some property of wife 1 being transferred to the husband and ultimately to wife 2.

Just as if wife 1 has a cold she might give it to the husband and he might give it to wife 2, so they all have the same cold.