Prostitution vs adultery

[frederick]

The public part means that you are claiming her and taking ownership of her and not just using her. Publicly means that she is afforded the protection due her by your covering. She is granted your protection by virtue of her relationship as your wife. Other men will know that she is not available and that they will be committing adultery if they mess with her.

I'm wondering how you square that with e.g. Isaac taking Rebekah in the account in Genesis 24:64-67? The families knew the situation, but I don't read of anything public(?) Same with Abraham taking Hagar... .

 

[FollowingHim]

It would be very easy for this discussion now to become the hundredth thread saying the same things over again. Let's stick to only what is new and inspired by this passage of scripture.

 

[Mark C]

26) for a prostitute's fee is only a loaf of bread, but the wife of another stalks a man's very life.

I believe that marriage is the process of legally taking a woman publicly as your wife and confirming this agreement with sex.
The legal part means that you have to be doing this in accordance with God's word and with the approval of the legal guardianship of the woman in question, her headship. or if she does not have any then by her herself.

Zec's logical impasse is that he denies the precept of Covenant.

And that is the undeniable difference. When Covenant is confirmed by sexual union both parties know it, and joyfully affirm that fact.

The difference is more than just the fee, as Solomon points out.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I'm wondering how you square that with e.g. Isaac taking Rebekah in the account in Genesis 24:64-67? The families knew the situation, but I don't read of anything public(?) Same with Abraham taking Hagar... .

I do not believe that there has to be a public ceremony.
I had intended to make that clear... A public ceremony is good to "set" it in the minds of the community but it is not required.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

Proverbs 6:26 is very interesting. It is translated in various ways in different translations, some of which don't seem to make much logical sense. But the NRSV renders it extremely interestingly:

Proverbs 6:23-35
For the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life, to preserve you from the wife of another,
from the smooth tongue of the adulteress. Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and do not let her capture you with her eyelashes;
26) for a prostitute's fee is only a loaf of bread, but the wife of another stalks a man's very life.
Can fire be carried in the bosom without burning one's clothes? Or can one walk on hot coals without scorching the feet? So is he who sleeps with his neighbour's wife; no one who touches her will go unpunished. Thieves are not despised who steal only to satisfy their appetite when they are hungry. Yet if they are caught, they will pay sevenfold; they will forfeit all the goods of their house. But he who commits adultery has no sense; he who does it destroys himself. He will get wounds and dishonour, and his disgrace will not be wiped away. For jealousy arouses a husband's fury, and he shows no restraint when he takes revenge. He will accept no compensation, and refuses a bribe no matter how great.

The proverbs introduce the strange woman in chapter 2.
Pro 2:16 To deliver thee from the strange woman, even from the stranger which flattereth with her words;

It then picks it back up in chapter 5 and then delves deeper into the topic of adultery here in chapter 6. It continues on though in chapter 7 and reveals that this strange woman is indeed married. She is seeking to devour him through adultery.

Pro 7:5 That they may keep thee from the strange woman, from the stranger which flattereth with her words.
Pro 7:6 For at the window of my house I looked through my casement,
Pro 7:7 And beheld among the simple ones, I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
Pro 7:8 Passing through the street near her corner; and he went the way to her house,
Pro 7:9 In the twilight, in the evening, in the black and dark night:
Pro 7:10 And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
Pro 7:11 (She is loud and stubborn; her feet abide not in her house:
Pro 7:12 Now is she without, now in the streets, and lieth in wait at every corner.)
Pro 7:13 So she caught him, and kissed him, and with an impudent face said unto him,
Pro 7:14 I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.
Pro 7:15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee, diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
Pro 7:16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry, with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
Pro 7:17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes, and cinnamon.
Pro 7:18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning: let us solace ourselves with loves.
Pro 7:19 For the goodman is not at home, he is gone a long journey:
Pro 7:20 He hath taken a bag of money with him, and will come home at the day appointed.

There is GREAT danger in taking a woman whom you do not know, whose history you do not know, whose current status you do not know.
A Strange woman will tell you all that you want to hear in order to get what she wants from you. You should do your due diligence to find out from those that know her, what her true history and status is or you could be caught in adultery without intending it.

I do not think that it is a sin to be with an unmarried prostitute. But as this passage reveals, a married woman may meet you with the attire of a prostitute and cause you to fall into sin.

The wisdom then is to avoid prostitutes altogether so that you avoid this trap.

We see that instruction in chapter 5.
Pro 5:15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.
Pro 5:16 Let thy fountains be dispersed abroad, and rivers of waters in the streets.
Pro 5:17 Let them be only thine own, and not strangers' with thee.
Pro 5:18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth.
Pro 5:19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.
Pro 5:20 And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?

This is my take away from the beginning of Psalms...

 

[MemeFan]

It is the very fact that your thesis works only in ideal / normal situations but falls over "on the margins" that shows you don't fully understand it yet, and your understanding is too simplistic @The Revolting Man.

But one thought you may find helpful. If you have sex with a prostitute, she's still a prostitute. What has really changed? She had slept with 538 men, now she's slept with 539. What's the difference? And her man (pimp) doesn't care, he's glad for the money. But if you take a man's wife she completely changes status from good wife to adulteress, and her man (husband) changes from being amiable to murderous.

Because intent matters.

Prostitute has immoral job, while adultress doesn't.

Pregnant prostitute has only bastard, while who is father in case of pregnant adultress? Will adultress try to deceive her husband?

There is no deceit with prostitute, just immoral act.

Woman if she fancies another man can always divorce. Divorce itself may be immoral, but it's honest act. She wants another without hiding it as adultress.

And don't forget swingers who exchange wives. Immoral, but honest.

Even in case of dead man intent matters. There is big difference between murder and accident which causes death.

 

[Transformator Reformator]

The question argued is whether a one flesh union equals marriage.

That was my fault for forgetting the difference of opinion. I was writing it late at night. I am leaning that intercourse is binding and therefore one flesh union does equal marriage and marriage equals one flesh union. Those are synonymous phrases for me. But it can be nullified by headship. Same way a vow can be nullified by headship. But understand it is minority view and I am sorry for steering the discussion from intended goal.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I think it may be helpful to keep in mind a woman always belongs to a patriarch (a father or a man). Intercourse equals one flesh union but it has to be confirmed by a patriarch. in case of adultery, patriarch vetoes this union because his woman has been illegally possessed (David repossessed his wives who were violated). Adultery is a crime against another patriarch not necessary against a woman. I am thinking of the king who took Sarah in "innocence of his heart". Dialogue there between God and Abimelech was regarding another man's woman and not necessary violation of woman's personal preference (Genesis 20).

In case of union with a prostitute, there is no patriarch to void the union or approve the union. A prostitute does not belong to any man. He who joins with a prostitute has formed one flesh union. But there is no patriarch to enforce this union, as a result unfortunately she is left to be treated treacherously either by her own choice and/or choice of her client who fails to commit.

I think your position is valid to maintain the view on one flesh union. The Proverbs passage discussed does not have to disprove consistency of intercourse equals one flesh union. We just have to be mindful of patriarchy as well (ownership of a woman).

I like this line of reasoning. I don’t have the scripture to back it up yet.

 

[The Revolting Man]

It is the very fact that your thesis works only in ideal / normal situations but falls over "on the margins" that shows you don't fully understand it yet, and your understanding is too simplistic

That criticism would be easier to take if the other sides in this debate were criticized for having no thesis based in scripture whatsoever. No one else has even the beginnings of an idea of how to form a valid “marriage” in even the best of circumstances, at least not one that has any basis in the Bible.

So for now I remain the subject matter expert. I look forward to someone challenging my supremacy but so far no one will come forward with a scripturally based alternative.

And yes, that was a challenge if anyone is up for a review of the latest research.

 

[The Revolting Man]

The question argued is whether a one flesh union equals marriage...

I argue that sex by itself does not equal marriage.

Except that a divorce is dissolving a one flesh union, not a “marriage”.