Black Knighting Churchian Marriage

Black Knight

You just can’t make this stuff up.  Really.

Commenter whysoserious? presented a rather interesting argument.  It was rather long and I wanted to address it so I turned it into a post all its own.  That continued in the comments and he finally narrowed things and presented the argument.  It was fascinating, actually.  In fact, it was so good that it pointed to a tremendous opportunity for serious black knighting.

Readers of this blog are aware that I have advanced the point that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.   What that means in practical terms is simple:  the man who got the woman’s virginity is her husband.  The guy who had a wedding with a woman who was not a virgin isn’t really married to her because she was already married.  The technical term for this is adultery because unless the man who got her virginity was dead, she was still married to him.  According to information from the CDC and other organizations, at least 80% of the so-called marriages in any given church are cases of adultery, not marriage.  Which probably has a lot to do with why we see so many divorces.

For those who are familiar with this you can skip down to the next heading.  For those who are not, you need to read this to understand why this is so much fun.

I have repeatedly made the argument using the text of what Genesis 2:24 actually says.  Genesis 2:24 contains three elements.  The first is a change in status, that by virtue of the fact he is marrying a woman, the man leaves from under the authority of his father and his mother in forming his own family, over which he is the head.  This isn’t physically leaving because a man can get married and continue living in his parents home, this is a change of status.  To date, no-one has ever argued to the contrary with me.

The second element is where the man has sex with his wife.  The Hebrew word that is typically translated into English as “cleave” or “join” is the Hebrew word “dabaq.”  That word is used 54 times and while I argue that it definitely means sex in Genesis 2:24 and I will also argue that it should mean sex in 1st Kings 11:2, in all the other usages of the word it basically means commitment.

(I believe a far better translation of 1st Kings 11:2 would be “Solomon loved to have sex with them” instead of “Solomon held fast to them in love.”  We’re talking about the man with 1000 wives.  That wasn’t about commitment, it was about sexual variety.)

The third element is the action of God, in which the two shall become one flesh.  We know that it’s the action of God because Jesus said so in Matthew 19:6.  In the first element we have the change in status, in the second element we have the action of the man and in the third element we have the action of God.  This isn’t difficult to understand.

That view is completely contrary to the interpretation advanced a long time ago by the Easter Bunny.  He claimed that because “dabaq” meant commitment everywhere else, so it meant commitment in Genesis 2:24 and that’s where the wedding ceremony was inserted.  No, they claim, sex cannot make you married, there has to be a ceremony where the couple makes their commitment to each other.  After that, the two became one flesh, which he defined as the point at which the couple had sex.  There are multiple problems with this, but ultimately they all hinge on the meaning of the word “dabaq.”

Dabaq Gets The Shiv in Translation

I advanced the argument that we know the word “dabaq” as used in Genesis 2:24 means sex because Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5 and the Apostolic translation of the word into Greek used the Greek word “kolloa.”   With that we have a hard and direct translation of dabaq to kolloa.  Then, the Apostle Paul, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 used the word kolloa within the specific context of Genesis 2:24 to textually define kolloa as the act of becoming one body with a prostitute.  Sex, in other words.  The context of Genesis 2:24 cannot be questioned because Paul quoted half of Genesis 2:24 within the text of verse 16 and the structure makes it clear that kolloa was used in that verse exactly as dabaq was used in Genesis 2:24.

A = B and B = C, therefore,  A = C.  It’s that simple, and as used in Genesis 2:24, the word dabaq means sex.  Which means that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her.  But, this gets even more interesting.  The word dabaq is used everywhere else as commitment and and kolloa is used everywhere else in terms of human relationships as fidelity and faithfulness, so within the context of Genesis 2:24 sex is clearly the way a man demonstrates his commitment of fidelity and faithfulness in marriage.  In other words, sex is the act of marriage for a man, the specific act by which a man marries a woman.

This answers the question of why the word dabaq, which means commitment everywhere else, would suddenly mean sex when it comes to the initiation of marriage.  Because sex is how the man makes his commitment to the marriage.  And, this fits perfectly with all the ancillary Scripture such as Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  Again, I’ve written about this repeatedly.

That is the setup.

In order to defeat this argument, one has to show that the word kolloa does NOT mean sex in 1st Corinthians 6:16, that instead it means something else.  Since, like the word dabaq, the word kolloa means faithfulness and loyalty in all the other times it’s used, that would be the logical way to go.

Commenter whysoserious? decided to make what he called the reasonable argument that kolloa meant marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16, and the meaning of the passage was that the Apostle Paul was telling Christian men they were not to marry a prostitute or a promiscuous woman.  This is where the fun began.

Having been on the receiving end of this type of argument as it applied to dabaq, I was very familiar with it, but I wanted to see how far he would take it.  And credit must be given to whysoserious? because there was obviously a lot of work put into that argument.  Yes, it was weak.  The points were specious and none of it hung together very well, but on the surface it sounded damn good.  For those Christians who don’t know their Bibles well, it would be an extremely intimidating argument.  It doesn’t get much better than this.

Unintended Consequences

There was a problem with the argument, which falls into the category of unintended consequences.   The only reason to make the argument in the first place was to defeat the point I’d been making, that the Hebrew word dabaq meant sex when it was used in Genesis 2:24.   Seriously, who in their right mind would try to reinterpret 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 to mean that it’s not talking about sex with prostitutes unless there were a damn good reason for doing so?  The passage is so clear that it’s been recognized for exactly what it means for 2000 years.  Banging prostitutes is forbidden for Christian men.  It’s so well understood that it’s where the English word fornication actually comes from.

As a result of torturing the text and twisting it out of shape to claim that kolloa meant marriage and not sex, there was an unintended consequence.  Many people do not know this, but the only place in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with prostitutes is 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being an ordinary money-for-sex prostitute.  There is a specific prohibition on cult prostitution, which is associated with idolatry, but not on ordinary prostitution.  An odious profession, but not an immoral profession.

However, the only way that prohibition exists is if, in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, the Greek word porne means a prostitute and the Greek word kolloa means sex.  As long as the word kolloa means sex there is a prohibition on using prostitutes and possibly even promiscuous women for sex.  But, what happens if someone creates an argument designed to prove that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in order to support the Easter Bunny’s claim that dabaq doesn’t mean sex in Genesis 2:24?

There is no longer any prohibition on having sex with prostitutes.

Consider for a moment just what kind of fun you can have using this on churchian cucks.  All that’s happening is the dabaq script is being flipped on kolloa, but when it’s presented as the “proof” that the Bible doesn’t actually forbid sex with prostitutes, it only forbids marrying them, it will provoke the insane desire to overcome the argument.  Which is exactly what is desired.  Commenter whysoserious? did all the heavy lifting in putting this argument together and if I ever create a “Toad’s Hall of Fame” then he’s got the first nomination in the “Unintended Black Knight” category.

So, make the argument that the Bible only forbids marrying prostitutes, not having sex with them, because kolloa doesn’t mean sex, it means marriage in 1st Corinthians 6:16.  The little known fact that the only prohibition against having sex with prostitutes is that particular passage and the even less well-known fact that if it weren’t for 1st Corinthians 6:16 banging prostitutes would be a moral activity (within certain limits) combine to really set things into high gear.  Because those points are the absolute truth and easy to prove.  It all comes down to the meaning of the word kolloa and the argument is that kolloa doesn’t mean sex in that passage.

Your favorite churchian cuck is now on a mission to prove the truth, that in 1st Corinthians 6:16, the meaning of the word kolloa is in fact sex because the meaning of the word porne in that passage is a prostitute and men go to prostitutes to get sex, not marriage.  The Black Knight’s job is to get them stirred up so that they put some energy into solving this little problem.   Be obnoxious about it.  Taunt them.  Make sure they want everyone to know when they defeat your argument, because after publicly owning it, you can congratulate them on proving that sex with an eligible virgin is the act of marrying her.

Oh- and what are we going to do about all the adultery here in the congregation?

Best of all, this is an either or choice.  If kolloa means sex in that passage then banging an eligible virgin is to marry her.  If kolloa doesn’t mean sex then there is no prohibition on banging prostitutes.  Words mean things.

In modern churchianity it’s the women who control the money.  In large part it’s women who determine whether a family attends any particular church.  Ask yourself this:  which of these two options will the women choose?  My money is on sex with an eligible virgin is marriage.  There are options there, like Daddy annulling the marriage.  Not so with the moral legitimacy of her husband getting the odd piece on the side.  That’s not going to fly.

Keep in mind the power dynamics and Black Knight the hell out of this.  Now that the Cucks have proven that kolloa means sex, it means dabaq means sex.  What about all the adultery around here?  This is a tar baby of magnificent proportions.  So don’t forget to thank whysoserious? for doing the heavy lifting by putting this together.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Black Knighting Churchian Marriage

  1. Renee Harris says:

    There is s punishment for adultery in the Bible. So apply it…. For the women only

  2. whysoserious? says:

    Great response, AT; I’m touched by your hypothetical honor. I’ve always wanted to be the knight in dingy armor. You’ve raised up a lot of good counterarguments, but… I can’t agree with you. If you don’t mind, I’d like another go at this. (If you ever just want me to leave you in peace, just let me know; otherwise, I see this as a beneficial opportunity for myself to sharpen my own arguments. Thanks!)

    First off, please know that, on a personal level, I don’t think prostitution is a good idea. You’re right, there’s a high risk of disease, and I wouldn’t call it a very wise occupation. But just because I think something is unwise, doesn’t give me license to say it’s morally wrong. That’s God’s job. And, throughout the entire Old Testament, as you agree, He never got around to it. The only potential indictment of prostitution for Christians is in 1 Cor. 6. I write ‘potential,’ because my understanding of Christianity requires me to believe that the first few books of the Old Testament enumerate those actions which displease God: so sin, basically. That’s why I’m trying to find an alternate interpretation of our contested passage.

    For those of you following along at home, in my last comment, I made an argument that the Greek word kollao most likely means marriage, since it always refers to a tie of loyalty when it’s used on people. The other important word in 1 Cor 6:15 is porne, a word that’s used throughout the Septuagint and New Testament to refer to sexually and religiously promiscuous people and those who commit sexual sin. I argued that, rather than inventing a new sin, Paul is claiming that he who is married/bound to a promiscuous wife unites Christ’s members with her. It’s not a terrible argument…

    …but I now see I was wrong. AT, take a closer look at the Greek words in 1 Cor. 6:15, and compare them to those in Matt. 19:5-6 and Genesis 2:24 (in the Septuagint). What do you see? In 1 Cor. 6:15, we notice that a man who cleaves to a porne is one soma with her, not one sarx. Sarx is translated as flesh, and is used in Genesis 2 and the gospels where Jesus talks about divorce. This word refers to our fleshly, physical bodies. Soma is translated as “body,” and refers to the entire person this side of death, including his moral/spiritual/soul-y components. If I understand correctly, which I very well might not, soma contains sarx. Why would sex with a prostitute create greater spiritual ties than, say, that ‘one flesh’ in marriage?

    What if Paul were referring to temple prostitutes? We know Corinth, at some time, was known for them, and it would explain the spiritual significance of such sex. Plus, the word for temple prostitute in Deut. 23:18 is, you guessed it! porne. This preserves the Law and the consistent nature of God. Rather than sticking out like a sore thumb, this passage can fit seamlessly into the Biblical narrative.

    AT’s noticed by now that I’m letting kollōmenos be sex. This leaves me with the chore of showing why Gen. 2, Matt. 19, Mark 10, and Ephesians 5 don’t imply sex is marriage. Thankfully, Ezekiel 16:8 helps considerably by demonstrating that an oath is a necessary condition for marriage. Also, Matt. 19/Mark 10 provides a reason for not separating husband and wife: God united them in one flesh. This is reflected in the voice of the kollao verb/participle. Whereas it is passive in Gen. 2, Eph. 5, and the gospels (so the man isn’t the agent of unification), it is middle in 1 Cor. 6 (so the man is an agent of unification). Thus, not all sex necessarily involves divine intervention. It seems likely to me that God becomes involved once a man swears an oath for a woman to be his wife, and that having sex is a part of that oath. This also explains why the woman in Gen. 2, Matt. 19/Mark 10, and Eph. 5 is always described as “his wife/woman,” not just “a woman.”

    TL;DR: I revisit the Greek words used in the relevant passages, and notice that 1 Cor. 6 makes a distinction between being one body (soul+flesh) with a prostitute and being one flesh with non-prostitutes. The spiritual significance of the former makes me think porne describes temple prostitutes, for whom sex was a spiritual and idolatrous act. ‘Kollao’ is sex, but its grammatical voice, the judicious use of oaths in Ezekiel, and the use of autou confirm the existence of contractual marriage.


    whysoserious?

    • “But just because I think something is unwise, doesn’t give me license to say it’s morally wrong. That’s God’s job. And, throughout the entire Old Testament, as you agree, He never got around to it.

      I would say He chose not to. To say that He never got around to it means He didn’t do a good job, that it wasn’t complete. Scripture testifies of itself, “The Law of the Lord is perfect.” Therefore, He chose not to.

      “my understanding of Christianity requires me to believe that the first few books of the Old Testament enumerate those actions which displease God: so sin, basically”

      This is positively stated in Romans 4:15 and 5:13. Put together, these verses basically say “where there is no law there is no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed.” Romans 14 states “that which is not of faith is sin” and James 4:17 states that he who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, that is sin to him. The right thing to do, according to Scripture, is for servants to obey their master.

      ” I argued that, rather than inventing a new sin, Paul is claiming that he who is married/bound to a promiscuous wife unites Christ’s members with her. It’s not a terrible argument…”

      I’ve already mentioned this, but all Christians are servants of Christ according to the Law of the Bondservant (Exodus 21:1-6). Christians were purchased for a price, paid in His blood at Calvary. Therefore Christians have an obligation to obey their master. Christ, as the Master has the authority to establish rules for His own house that apply only to His house. This does not change the Law because individuals freely choose to become His slaves. 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 is an example of one such “house rule” that specifically restricts Christian men from having sex with prostitutes. Only Christian men can join the members of a whore to the body of Christ. And, in light of that, yours is a terrible argument.

      “…but I now see I was wrong. AT, take a closer look at the Greek words in 1 Cor. 6:15, and compare them to those in Matt. 19:5-6 and Genesis 2:24 (in the Septuagint).”

      I’ve explained in other comments, but I’ll repeat it here. I do not accept the Septuagint as authoritative for the purposes of translating any of this. In line with the Protestant tradition, my first hermeneutical rule is “Sola Scriptura.” Since, as you have already pointed out, the key word here is porne, I will point out that porne is more than adequately defined in the New Testament without the help of the Old Testament or the Septuagint. The New Testament was written under Apostolic authority and as Scripture says, “All Scripture is God-breathed” which means it’s light-years ahead of the Septuagint which was originally written by 70 Rabbis and later modified by the Masorites between the 7th and 10th centuries AD. As to the word porne:

      The word porne was used 12 times in the New Testament. Seven times it was used in the physical sense, the other five times it was used were all in the book of Revelation to describe the great harlot, the mother of all abominations. A metaphorical application describing an idolatress and idolatry. Used to describe the physical, we find the following:

      Matthew 21:31-32. Used in the sense of a job description along with tax collectors. An unsavory occupation. Note that the tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the kingdom of heaven before the Chief priest and Temple elders because they believed.

      Luke 15:30. Within the parable of the prodigal son, describing the prostitutes the prodigal son had spent his money on. Sex-for-money prostitution.

      Hebrews 11:31, describing Rahab the righteous harlot, the hall of fame passage.

      James 2:25, describing Rahab the righteous harlot in the context that faith without works is dead. Rahab demonstrated her faith by her works.

      Finally we have 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, using the same word, porne. In English, a prostitute. Of the other five uses of this word we have two simple job descriptions that are tied together with the job description of tax collectors. Both of them unsavory, odious professions, although moral, with the admonition that they will enter the Kingdom of Heaven before the Chief Priest and Elders of the Temple because they believed. Then we have two specific mentions by name of Rahab the righteous prostitute. Finally we have the prostitutes on whom the prodigal son spent his money. There is no hint in any of this of anything other than sex-for-money prostitution. No idolatry, no adultery, nothing but the moral and legitimate operation of the oldest profession.

      Observe that with respect to the Biblical use of the word porne, it describes a money-for-sex type of work or a money-for-sex type of prostitute and the fact that Rahab the righteous prostitute was two of the seven mentions and the money-for sex prostitutes who got the prodigal son’s money makes a strong case that this is the sort of prostitution that is moral and not a violation of the Law in any way. These are perfect examples of the type of woman a man visits to have sex without the danger of getting married.

      That is what drives the definition of kolloa in 1st Corinthians 6:16 to mean sex that one pays money for. Because that’s what the prostitutes sell.

      “What if Paul were referring to temple prostitutes? We know Corinth, at some time, was known for them, and it would explain the spiritual significance of such sex. Plus, the word for temple prostitute in Deut. 23:18 is, you guessed it! porne. This preserves the Law and the consistent nature of God. Rather than sticking out like a sore thumb, this passage can fit seamlessly into the Biblical narrative.”

      Again, I truly don’t care what the Septuagint says. I care what the Bible says. From the way porne is defined in the Bible as it is used, it excludes the temple prostitutes which would have been a violation of the Law and women who would not have been visited by the men Paul was speaking to. Why get your sex in violation of the Law when you can get it completely within the Law?

      I will also point out, before you get too gleeful, one of the problems with using the Septuagint (which, I’m quite sure is why you did) is that the Greek didn’t have a differentiated word for qadashah so I’ll just take your word for it that porne was used in the Septuagint for “temple prostitute in Deuteronomy 23:18 even though it didn’t fit within the New Testament usage of the word. Nice try.

      As to using the Septuagint to define body and flesh in the New Testament, No. Three words. Porne determines what kolloa means in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and that determines what dubaq means in Genesis 2:24. Everything else is off point and out to lunch.

      ” Thankfully, Ezekiel 16:8 helps considerably by demonstrating that an oath is a necessary condition for marriage.”

      Again, I don’t accept the metaphorical actions of God in His metaphorical marriage to Jerusalem and Samaria or to Israel and Judah as creating any form of requirement for marriage. The requirements of marriage are found in Genesis 2:24. But don’t worry, it’s all there for you.

      “Whereas it is passive in Gen. 2, Eph. 5, and the gospels (so the man isn’t the agent of unification), it is middle in 1 Cor. 6 (so the man is an agent of unification). Thus, not all sex necessarily involves divine intervention. It seems likely to me that God becomes involved once a man swears an oath for a woman to be his wife, and that having sex is a part of that oath.”

      You have it, you just haven’t seen it yet. …having sex is a part of that oath.” No, Sex with an ELIGIBLE VIRGIN is to make the oath. If the woman is not a virgin it is the woman who must offer the commitment, not the man, because sex is the act of marriage for the man, signifying his commitment to marry. Which is why there is not a single prohibition on having sex with an eligible woman anywhere in Scripture, except for 1st Corinthians 6:15-16; which is where the act of having sex is done under conditions designed to specifically avoid getting married.

      Because dabaq means commitment in the majority of it’s usage and because kolloa means fidelity and loyalty in the majority of its usage for human interaction, it becomes apparent that the act of sex, which is the act of marriage, is the specific ceremony necessary for the man to make his commitment of marriage to the woman. A special instrument used to sign the contract in her blood.

      The man makes his commitment to marriage with the act of penetrating her with his penis. This is his “oath” if you will. It permanently changes the virgin, tearing her hymen, such that she is no longer a virgin. It is an irreparable and permanent act that begins what is to be a permanent relationship. The issue of divorce, however, is a different subject.

      This act by the man initiates the covenant with the shedding of her blood and God seals the covenant by making them one flesh. Thus, all of the elements you have been looking for are present without the need for metaphorical cloaks and oaths from Ezekiel. And, if the idea of a penis being used to initiate a covenant is too far out there for you, consider the significance of circumcision and the covenant God made with Israel.

      Now that you’ve confirmed that kolloa means sex, then Genesis 2:24 should read

      “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, shall have sexual intercourse with his wife and the two shall become one flesh.”

      Now we can take a look at Deuteronomy 22:28-29 and see that by golly, the sex made them married and there is nothing more to be done. Because the phrase “shall become” is exactly the same in both Genesis 2:24 and Deuteronomy 22:29.

      “Shall become one flesh.”
      “Shall become his wife.”

      Christ explained that God joins the two together (Matthew 19:6) and since the man is the actor in having sex with his wife that leaves God to make them one flesh, or “join” them. Which means with the act of sex they are married because there is truly nothing more to do.

      • whysoserious? says:

        I’ll agree to disagree on adding to the Law. In my mind, your way involves Christ disagreeing with the Father on appropriate behavior, and that just doesn’t seem right.

        Regarding the Septuagint, I must admit I am no expert on the textual history of the Old Testament. However, you may want to double-check your indictment. The Septuagint was translated into Greek by those rabbis a few centuries before Christ, and the Masorites were the ones who modified the Hebrew Bible you use in the Middle Ages, IIRC. That said, it cannot be argued that the Septuagint provides a substantial body of Classical Greek text, and that extra text provides more context for language comprehension. (For example, if a scholar in 3000AD wanted to study American English in the 19th century, he could examine usage in Edgar Allen Poe to help interpret Mark Twain.) And “All Scripture is God-breathed” is just as much (if not more) a promotion of the Septuagint, because NT citations of the Scriptures match the Septuagint much more closely than the Hebrew Bible. Look it up sometime. I think you’re confusing the faults of the Hebrew Bible/OT with the Septuagint.

        From the way porne is defined in the Bible as it is used, it excludes the temple prostitutes which would have been a violation of the Law and women who would not have been visited by the men Paul was speaking to. Why get your sex in violation of the Law when you can get it completely within the Law?

        With that reasoning, Paul wouldn’t need to encourage them to flee sexual immorality, or any other sin, either. Yet there was sexual sin forbidden in the Law already in the Corinthian church (ch. 5).

        I will also point out, before you get too gleeful, one of the problems with using the Septuagint (which, I’m quite sure is why you did) is that the Greek didn’t have a differentiated word for qadashah so I’ll just take your word for it that porne was used in the Septuagint for “temple prostitute in Deuteronomy 23:18 even though it didn’t fit within the New Testament usage of the word.

        Yes, Greek lacks differentiation between temple and non-temple prostitutes. But the context of Deut. 23:18 makes it clear that it was restricting religiously affiliated harlots. So ‘temple prostitute’ is one possible meaning of ‘porne’ according to a relevant semi-contemporary text that Paul certainly knew about.

        As to using the Septuagint to define body and flesh in the New Testament, No. Three words. Porne determines what kolloa means in 1st Corinthians 6:16 and that determines what dubaq means in Genesis 2:24. Everything else is off point and out to lunch…. Again, I don’t accept the metaphorical actions of God in His metaphorical marriage to Jerusalem and Samaria or to Israel and Judah as creating any form of requirement for marriage.

        You’re closing your eyes to anything that could reveal an alternate interpretation. You reject a corpus of ancient Greek text which gives insight into the definitions and usages of words important to this discussion, you “don’t accept” illuminations of relevant cultural practices that cast doubt on your ideology; all to save your precious syllogisms of contrived equivalences, concocted from methodical exclusions of linguistic and cultural context. I expected more from you, sir: you broke free from the shackles of popular doctrine, only to lock yourself in a new prison… or something like that. I never feel like I stick the landing on my melodramatic sentences.

        For others who may happen across this, here is my counterargument in full. The reader of the Bible is assumed to know what marriage is, just like he’s assumed to know what a man is, or a king, or a nation. These words, though integral to understanding the Bible, are left to the reader’s cultural knowledge of the ancient Near East. Genesis 2:24 is NOT a law or a definition; it is the conclusion to a story that explains why a man cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Read it yourself: you’ll see this is the natural context and interpretation. Ezekiel 16 demonstrates that an oath viewed as a necessary component of marriage. It doesn’t establish a requirement, it just demonstrates a preexisting one which elucidates the nature of marriage. In Matt. 19 and Mark 10, Jesus explains why divorce is wrong, namely, because it separates that which God united (the Greek word for married). In the context of marriage involving a sworn oath (presumably upon God), this argument against divorce is a simple reminder that men can’t dissolve a sworn union bound by God at will. Last but not least, Paul, in 1 Cor 16, warns Corinthians to refrain from binding themselves to (i.e. sleeping with) porne, a word that could mean any variety of loose woman or prostitute. He argues this on ground that one who uses a such a porne becomes one body (soul + flesh) with her, which transitively makes the members of Christ one with her. This is the only time sex is described as united bodies (soul + flesh): in all others, it is merely referred to as uniting flesh. Thus, spiritual significance is implied. The only porne with spiritual significance is a temple prostitute, which we know is a type of porne by other texts. Therefore, 1 Cor 16 is most likely a warning against using temple prostitutes. Last but not least, the verb form of “to cleave/join” in this instance leaves the man as a (possible) agent of the binding, contrasting with the verb forms in the divorce passages, which are all left in the passive voice with God as the implied agent. All of this is to say, in one ungainly paragraph, sex is not sufficient unite any two people in marriage, and our esteemed host’s arguments are flawed.

        Thanks for reading. I’ll probably go back to lurking around here, perhaps responding to clarify as needed. AT, I still do respect you, and appreciate what you’re doing here. I just think you’re fantastically wrong on this subject. This has been a lot of fun, but I do think I’ve reached the point where further argumentation will just be talking past each other.

  3. Mycroft Jones says:

    I consulted with the representative of the High Priest in Israel last night. He came down on the side of “a man is not forbidden to use a prostitute”. Therefore, having sex with a virgin does not make you married to her.

  4. Renee Harris says:

    Can a non virgin unmarried Christian woman works as a as lady of the night and still honor Christ,
    With the soles the need To be save, if Christian men can just use hoes wouldn’t be less time consuming and thus better the body of believers. Kinda like staying at rather by a mortgage?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s