Churchian Fail: 5 out of 21

fail

The family is the foundation of civilization and sexual morality is the foundation of family.  Most Christians would agree with those two statements, but most Christians are ignorant of the fact that of the following twenty-one points from the Bible concerning sexual morality, only five are generally and consistently taught by the churches today.   Five out of twenty-one is the score for modern churchianity.

Keep in mind that this problem was baked into the cake 1500 years ago.  You might have heard the old saying that when you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.  There’s a lot of truth in that.  This is all about power-hungry individuals and a group of very influential early church fathers who hated sex and considered sex- even within marriage, to be sinful and at best a necessary evil.

Understanding Churchian Sexual Morality

I.  Modern Christianity pays little more than lip service to the idea that the Lord Jesus Christ cares what His servants do. If this premise is correct, Christianity is only useful in terms of providing common social cues and general attitudes. If this premise is not correct, modern Christianity doesn’t need a revival, it needs to be destroyed for the apostate mess that it is.

II.  Modern Christians are almost completely ignorant of what the Bible actually says and they can’t be bothered to read it in order to find out. If and when they do, there is a legion of feminist professional Christians on hand to “help” them “interpret” what the Bible says. The interpretation will prevent understanding what the words actually say and mean.

III.  The modern church is a business, typically organized as a not-for-profit corporation that provides services to the general public of a religious nature. The purpose of this business is to receive money (tithes) from the attending public in return for teaching them that God loves them, Jesus forgives them no matter what they’ve done, they should love one another and not forget to tithe.

IV.  Anyone who teaches what the Bible says within the modern framework of Christianity is derided as a “fundamentalist” and generally rejected, mocked and ridiculed because they take the appropriate points of what the Bible says in a literal fashion.

V.  Because of point #4, Modern Christians of the west are unable to understand Islam because they cannot fathom the idea of being a servant of God with the requirement to do what God has commanded them to do. Therefore, they refer to Muslims who take such an attitude as being “radicalized” instead of understanding that such Muslims are simply taking their religious duties seriously. Ironically, it is common to hear of certain Christians becoming “on fire for the Lord” because they got serious about being obedient to what the Bible says, but they cannot make the connection and see that when a Muslim becomes “on fire for Mohammed” the fire is generally coming from the muzzle of a rifle.

VI.  Anyone who digs into the Bible and carefully studies the area of sexual morality, marriage and family relations will discover that the doctrines in place in virtually every church are in direct conflict with what the Bible says about these areas.

VII.  Anyone who teaches the parts of the Bible that conflict with the carefully constructed doctrines concerning sexual morality and marriage will be viciously attacked by everyone in the modern church; Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant.

 

21 Elements Of Biblical Sexual Morality

  1. The act of marriage is sexual intercourse and to have sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her (Genesis 2:24). This means that every man she has sex with after that is a case of adultery because the woman is already married to the man who took her virginity.   Following that, any so-called marriage to another man is fraudulent because the woman is already married.
  2. The Law of Marriage states that when an eligible virgin has sex, she is married.  The Law of Vows states the father has the authority to forbid any vow or agreement his daughter makes in the day he hears of it.  Because the act of sexual intercourse is the act of marriage, when an eligible virgin has sex she is married.  Her agreement to have sex is therefore her agreement to marry.  However, in the day her father hears of her agreement (which happens after she has sex with him) he can forbid that agreement and from the moment of the agreement she is no longer an eligible virgin.  Which means that the subsequent act of having sex did not make her married because her father refused her agreement and refused to give her in marriage.  Thus, we see in Exodus 22:16 an example of the father allowing her agreement and they are married.  In the following verse (verse 17) the father forbids it and the text says “and if he absolutely refuses to give her…”   There is no time limit and her father can forbid that agreement in the day he hears of it if she made the agreement in her youth while living in his house.
  3. The consent and/or commitment of an eligible virgin to her marriage is not necessary or required for her to be married (Exodus 21:7-10; Exodus 22:16; Deuteronomy 21:10-14; Deuteronomy 22:28-29). In contrast, marriage to an eligible non-virgin (such as a widow or legitimately divorced woman) requires her consent to marry in addition to sex in order to form a marriage (Genesis 2:24; Numbers 30:9; 1st Corinthians 7:39).
  4. With the act of penetration, the man makes his commitment to marry the woman he is having sex with, every single time (Genesis 2:24).
  5. There is no requirement anywhere in Scripture for a betrothal period, a celebration or ceremony of any kind, public or private, nor does marriage require the permission of any third party such as the church, because the authority to marry was granted to the man in the Law of Marriage (Genesis 2:24).
  6. Reinforcing point #4, there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture forbidding a man from having sex with an eligible woman, regardless of his marital status. If the woman is a virgin they are married. If the woman is not a virgin her consent to marry is required before they are married.  There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that prohibits an eligible woman from having sex with a man eligible to marry her.  According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the lack of prohibition means the act is not a sin.
  7. The lack of an eligible virgin’s requirement to provide consent to a marriage means she may be raped into marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).
  8. If a woman agrees to be married and does so without her father’s consent, he has the authority to forbid her agreement in the day he hears of it (Numbers 30:5).  By forbidding her agreement to marry she is no longer eligible to marry that man and the subsequent act of sex does not make them married.  This is the reason Exodus 22:17 states “if the father absolutely refuses to give her.”
  9. A married woman who has sex with any man other than her husband commits adultery as long as he is still alive (Leviticus 18:20, 20:10, Romans 7:2-3) which means that adultery requires a married woman.  Unless a married woman is involved there can be no adultery.
  10. The original standard of marriage was permanent but non-exclusive commitment on the part of the man with permanent and exclusive commitment on the part of the woman (Genesis 2:24, Leviticus 18:20, Genesis 3:16).
  11. Genesis 2:24 allowed a man to have more than one wife, which was supported throughout Scripture (Deuteronomy 25:5-10; 2nd Samuel 12:8; Jeremiah 31:21-32) and never changed.
  12. Although the standard of Genesis 2:24 called for permanent commitment on the part of the men, Moses permitted men to divorce their wives for adultery (Deuteronomy 24:1; Matthew 19:7-9). Christ later made a regulation for His church forbidding divorce between two Christians married to each other, effectively restoring the original standard of marriage within His church (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).
  13. The Apostle Paul instructed that if a Christian was married to a non-Christian and the non-Christian left the Christian and refused to live with them, the Christian was free (no longer bound) to the marriage (1st Corinthians 7:12-15).
  14. If a man lies with a man as with a woman, that is prohibited, an abomination and was classified as a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:2220:13).
  15. If either a man or a woman has sex with an animal it is a perversion and a death penalty offense (Leviticus 18:23, 20:15-16).
  16. While male homosexuality was an offense and bestiality was an offense for both men and women, homosexual contact between women was not prohibited except for cases of incest. The incest statutes contain two prohibitions on a man marrying sisters, or marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter. Those regulations presume sexual contact between wives in a polygynous marriage (Leviticus 18:17-18).
  17. There is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from being a simple money-for-sex prostitute, although prostitution as part of idolatry (cult prostitute) is forbidden in Deuteronomy 23:17.
  18. The only prohibition against using the services of a prostitute is in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, which only forbids Christian men from using prostitutes.
  19. If a man has sex with an eligible woman who is not a virgin and she does not consent to marry, all they did was have sex, there was no sin (Romans 4:15; 5:13).
  20. The only way a man and woman can have “premarital sex” is if they are engaged to be married and have sex during the engagement period. If they do so the man has violated the requirements of the engagement by not keeping his vow (Numbers 30:2). They are not married (even though she was a virgin) because due to the voluntary agreement, she cannot be married until after the end of the engagement period and any agreed upon ceremony.  In addition, the portion of traditional marriage vows to “forsake all others” is voluntary because Scripture contains no such requirement for the man.  If, however, the man chooses to make this vow it is binding upon him (Numbers 30:2).
  21. A man having intercourse with his wife while she is menstruating is committing a prohibited act that is ranked equally with adultery, bestiality, idolatry and male homosexuality (Leviticus 18:19-24).  The man and woman who do such a thing are to be cut off from their people (Leviticus 20:18).  While there is no prohibition or even any mention of masturbation anywhere in Scripture, sexual relations during menstruation is never mentioned in the modern church but masturbation is frequently condemned.

 

Of the 21 points on this list concerning sexual morality and marriage, only points 9, 13, 14, 15 and 18 are generally taught in the churches today. The other 16 points are either completely ignored or contradicted by church doctrine and attacked as lies, yet those points describe what the Bible actually teaches.

From point number one, it follows that at least 80% of the so-called “married” couples in the modern church are living in adultery because the women were already married (they were not virgins) when they purported to marry their husbands. This means that the greatest problem in the church today is the widespread adultery of the Christians within the church that is caused by the leaders of the church refusing to teach what the Bible actually says.

If it is correct that God takes an active hand in His creation based on the behavior of people, blessing them, withholding blessings, removing His protection or cursing them; and if it is correct that Christ likewise takes an active hand in His church, then the importance of the endemic of adultery in the church cannot be understated.

There are 16 points in the list above that the Bible teaches which the church either ignores or denies. Because of this, the vast majority of the adults in the church are in sin and the families are being destroyed by divorce, permanently injuring the children. If that sin does not matter because God forgives sin, there is no point in obeying anything in Scripture and the entire so-called “religion” of Christianity is a joke.

 

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Churchian Fail: 5 out of 21

  1. SnapperTrx says:

    I’ve never been called a fundamentalist I have been called “legalistic” by other Christians for suggesting we do what the bible says without trying to”interpret” it’s simplicity. Someone even told me I was under complicating the word. Is that even a thing?

  2. As per your request from Vox’s
    @ 96. Artisanal Toad
    “Churchians hold to the teachings of the Nicolaitans, which Christ hates.”

    The farthest I got when researching the Nicolaitans was that they elevated and separated the clergy from the laity. You have shown a new layer or doctrine of theirs; please provide some references.

    • In terms of calling it separating clergy from the laity, that’s a good start. Literally the word means victory over the laity. I need to do a post on this, but you might find this helpful:

      http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/why-does-god-hate-practices-of-the-nicolaitans.html

      Much later, the formal adoption of the doctrine of infallibility enshrined the unofficial doctrine that the leaders were never wrong. This doctrine, once adopted, meant that the leadership of the church could never admit error on their part. Thus, the church was stuck with doctrines that were adopted for purely political reasons that had no basis in Scripture.

      One of the major problems with obtaining an accurate understanding of church history is that of “open secrets” that are understood by those with knowledge but concealed from the laity. Thus, it’s rare to find an honest history of the church written by someone who does not have an ax to grind. A particularly good one is “Sex, Law and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage.

      From an evolutionary psychology point of view, Kevin MacDonald’s monograph on socially imposed monogamy in Europe is an excellent example of research that demonstrates the political motives of the church in establishing doctrines for political reasons. https://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/Monogamy1995.pdf

      A large part of the problem is in order to read the source material (assuming it’s available) the researcher must be experienced and fairly fluent in ancient Latin and Greek in order to understand the organic documents. The vast majority of the histories were written by individuals who intentionally concealed anything that might make the church look bad, so one has to look to the enemies of the church in order to learn the truthful history. As to the enemies of the church, I recommend “Beyond Belief: Two Thousand Years of Bad Behavior” by James McDonald. You can read a lot of it on his website and two things will quickly become obvious: He isn’t lying and he’s an excellent researcher. His mistake is in thinking that the mendacity and horrid behavior of the church leadership over the centuries negates Christianity.

      http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/

      You might find his page about the church leadership to be helpful:

      http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/bf0_priesthood.htm

      Keeping in mind the “victory over the laity” meme, take a look at the “early epistles” of the church fathers. Pay particular attention to the theme of authority of the clergy and bishops. http://www.orthodoxroad.com/voices-from-the-past/

      All of this points to the subject of this post, which is that the majority of the influential early church fathers hated sex and anything that produced sexual pleasure. They threw out virtually everything the Bible taught about sexual morality and marriage, replacing it with a combination of pagan belief, Stoicism and Roman law. Over the centuries this new set of beliefs was cemented into the culture and society through the use of shame.

      The doctrines that created sexual equalism became the foundation of feminism. For political reasons the church usurped the authority of men, aggregating that power and authority to themselves. With their loss of power following the protestant reformation, the State stepped in and usurped that authority and power from the church. With suffrage and political power, women took control of the state and that is where we are today.

      It was the teaching of the Nicolaitans that led to the way of Baalam, because with the adoption of the idea that a marriage only began with the wedding ceremony instead of sex (as the Bible teaches) the end result is what we see today. According to the statistics of the CDC, only about 5% of women approach the altar to marry as virgins (although some studies indicate that as much as 20% of highly religious women are virgins when they have their wedding). What this means is that according to God, at least 80% of the couples one sees in churches today are actually living in adultery because the woman was already married to another man when she had her wedding.

      • AT, I knew the term meant victory over the laity; what I didn’t know was how the distortion of the sexual relations became part of the Nicolaitans ideology. For me, the latter ideology would come under Jezebel.

        • Sorry about that. The Nicolaitan adherence to a top-down command structure was responsible for putting the anti-sex philosophy propounded by Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine into practice as doctrine.

          In terms of human interaction this isn’t a centuries-long conspiracy, but for Satan it is. That’s why I consider it the way of Baalam, because how does one take down the church? By causing the members of the church to be deep in sin.

          Historically, from what I can see, the litchpin is the doctrine of infallibility. The medieval doctrines had to be justified and upheld, especially the ones put in place for political reasons. For centuries very intelligent individuals worked on this. Keep in mind that Jerome made the official translation of the Bible for the church (the Vulgate).

  3. “Historically, from what I can see, the litchpin is the doctrine of infallibility.”
    I would put the linchpin back to when the Emperor Constantine allowed the Roman bishop to possess the office of the Inquisitor; and, importantly, Constantine allowed the bishop of Rome to hold the title Pontifex Maximus which makes the title bearer as God.

    • I will agree that drove the motivation toward corruption, but over the centuries the doctrine of infallibility meant the later church was stuck with whatever loony ideas the earlier church leadership had approved.

      Still, it’s quite nice to have someone around who actually reads history. If you haven’t read Brundage’s book you’ll love it.

  4. Reverend Pain says:

    When did church become one guy at the front who must be obeyed talking for 30+ minutes and nobody else can speak? I was at church this morning and the sermon was on Hosea but the minister did not mention 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul writes that the Lord commands christians NOT to divorce for any reason. I want to talk about 1 Corinthians 7 but there is no oppurtunity to do this in the modern church because it’s all about what the Leader or the Elders thinks and the average pew filler has no input whatsoever. Was it always like this in the early church? To me church is just like school where the Authority gives the lesson and everyone else just sits there trying not to look bored.

    • If you read the seven epistles of Christ in the book of Revelation, chapters 1-3, you will notice that several times Christ mentions the teachings of the Nicolaitans- which He hates. He is describing the idea of the elevation of the clergy above the laity. So, to answer your question, this has been around for a long time.

      However, it’s not as simple as that. In the vast majority of churches the churchians can’t be bothered to read or study their Bibles and thus are Biblically illiterate. In addition, they are unwilling to do the things that Christians are called upon to do. Even so, they want to go to churchian gatherings, hear a feel-good message and bask in the glory of what is to come. They have their fire insurance. This is somewhat of a problem, so in response they hire a professional Christian who will read his Bible, study it and provide feel-good messages to the flock. In addition their professional Christian will go about the community and do the things that ordinary Christians are supposed to do but don’t want to do.

      To further complicate the problem, if you check your corporate registry you will find the name of your church listed as being incorporated by the State as a not-for-profit business entity engaged in the business of providing services to the general public of a religious nature. In other words, at some point in the past the professional Christian and his fellow “leaders” in the church incorporated as a business. Keep in mind a famous point made by the Supreme Court: The corporation is the creation of the state and must obey the laws of its creator.

      So, to answer your question, you were sitting in the public reception hall of a corporate business entity which was providing you with services. You have no right to invade a business and tell them how to conduct their business or to participate in providing services. Your only choice is to enjoy it for what it’s worth, leave and find another service provider or start your own.

  5. happyhousewifey says:

    I always thought all the teachings of the old testament were void because Jesus said something like they were manmade (description of Jewish law) except the commandments (sp?). And that is why you don’t have to circumsize. The part about all of scripture being useful I thought just means it’s good to learn about it, but not to be followed in every case. Do you think Christians should also abide by the Jewish food rules? (I was raised atheist so please forgive my noobishness on this lol, and my husband doesn’t like to discuss religion much).

    • What Jesus actually said was that not least shading or stoke of the pen of the Law would pass away until all things were complete. The law was not done away with, what changed for Christians was their status.

      A free person has rights and responsibilities, they are responsible for their behavior. A slave is owned by their master and their master is responsible for their behavior. Without going into detail, Christians are bondservants (slaves) who were purchased by Christ, who paid for them with blood.

      Romans 14 is an excellent place to start if you want to study this. Keep in mind that keeping the Sabbath was one of the 10 commandments. Under the Law, a man has the right to divorce his wife if she commits adultery. In Christ, there is no divorce for two Christians married to each other. Not for any reason. Under the Law, a man has the right to use the services of a prostitute. In Christ, men are forbidden to use prostitutes. These are examples of further restrictions on Christians.

      What is sin? According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, sin is a violation of the Law. If the Law is done away with there is no more sin, right? If that’s the case we can commit adultery, right? Under the Law, everything was in black and white. In Christ, we have the Holy Spirit and our conscience. Romans 14:23 says “that which is not of faith is sin” and James 4:17 says “If you know the right thing to do and do not do it, that is sin to you.”

      No, the Law was not done away with, but we have a Master because we are slaves. We are to obey Him. What about all the temple requirements? We don’t have a temple any longer and even if we did, the veil was torn. What about all the civil laws? We do not live in the nation of Israel.

      Keep in mind that some of the most important points were made in Genesis. As to circumcision, you are not of the descendants of Abraham, so there is no requirement to circumcise your sons. There are some good reasons (health-wise) to do so, but it is not a requirement. The basics, however, don’t change and well over 90% of all the problems and issues devolve to sexual morality and idolatry. Those two issues are the ones that have been twisted and obfuscated the most.

  6. happyhousewifey says:

    How do you know which of them are civil laws and which religious?

    • Rather than try do do this in comments, let me do a post on this subject.

      Couple of points to consider: First, God does not change. The very first command to mankind was to be fruitful and multiply. The first law was the law of marriage (Genesis 2:24). The first judgment of mankind was that of Eve (Genesis 3:16). All of this pre-dated the giving of the Law in Exodus.

      There are some who make the argument that the Law of Moses applies only to the Hebrew people, but this is incorrect because Romans 4:15 and 5:13 specifically states that the Law specifically lists what sin is and the wages of sin is death for all people. Just as salvation in Christ is the salvation for all people.

      The structure of the Law is that a commandment is given, which is implemented by laws, statutes and ordinances. Further, there are judgments as the laws, statutes and ordinances are applied.

      The circumcision thing really wasn’t part of the Law, it was a command God gave to Abraham that he and all his descendants were required to be circumcised.

      Civil laws are those that describe the land, the inheritances, the cities, all the “crime and punishment” statutes and things like that.

      The religious laws are all the regulations concerning temple worship as well as any number of regulations that concern issues like idolatry.

      What most people call the moral laws are generally concerned with sexual behavior. However, they also concern issues laid out in the decalogue such as stealing, murder, coveting and honoring parents.

      Please ask any questions you have so I can work that into the post on this subject.

      • happyhousewifey says:

        A list of verses that relate to the different types of laws would be helpful. Also I really like seafood, aren’t there regulations against that somewhere in the old Testament? And then in the new one they say you are made unclean not by what enters the body, but what comes from inside (IDK exactly what it said anymore and where, I just took it aseat what you like and don’t be evil).
        English is not my first language so words like ordinance to me mean ‘something to do with legal issues’… They don’t clarify anything to me personally.

      • happyhousewifey says:

        And thank you, forgot to sau that X)

      • happyhousewifey says:

        Oh yeah, what about the widows marrying their late husbands brothers? I’d sooner marry a pack of hungry wolves than my husbands brother.

        • The Levirate marriage was a duty of the living brother, but only for his brother who died without an heir. The purpose was to give the dead brother an heir and the living brother had the responsibility of raising the son who would carry on his brother’s name and receive his inheritance. If the dead man had any sons, the Levirate marriage did not apply.

          But let’s put the shoe on the other foot. As to marrying any of my brothers wives, there is not enough viagra in the world to get me to the point of arousal with them. Think of an elephant seal.

          The widow gets a new husband immediately (security) and a son out of the deal who will take care of her in her old age. The brother? He has to put up with her and the problems with bringing her into the home along with his existing wife, get her pregnant, support her and her children and preserve the dead brother’s inheritance while the boy grows up.

          Read that passage very carefully. It’s not the wife who gets penalized and shamed for refusing, it’s the man. Why? Because while the widow gets a lot out of the deal, the man is the one who pays the price.

          As much or more than anything else, the Levirate marriage was a protection for the women at the expense of men.

  7. feeriker says:

    Thanks, Toad, for summimg this all up so nicely. I do, however, foresee you being bombarded constantly with the “your points are all Old Testament Law that don’t apply to Christians” reasoning. Perhaps a follow-up post to this is in order focusing specifically on why all of this DOES indeed apply to Christians (it would probably have to be written in as close to grade-school English as possible if evangelicals are to be made to grasp it). You’ll still get pushback, no doubt, but it will be much harder to justify if the case is made in unmistakeably clear terms.

  8. feeriker says:

    I’ve never been called a fundamentalist I have been called “legalistic” by other Christians for suggesting we do what the bible says without trying to”interpret” it’s simplicity. Someone even told me I was under complicating the word. Is that even a thing?

    It always amuses me to hear churchians throw around terms that they clearly don’t know the definition of. “Legalism” is the teaching of behaviors, usually in the form of restrictions or prohibitions, that are not scripturally based. Examples include decrying/prohibiting things such as drinking alcohol, dancing, gambling, or masturbation. As Toad points out, churches, especially evangelical ones, love to issue prohibitions against such things even though Scripture either does not prohibit them or does not mention them at sll. Thus these churches are adding to the Law (i.e., “Legalism”), something Jesus specifically prohibited.

  9. moderncaleb says:

    With regard to the question of which parts of the OT apply in the NT age, I was interested to recently read this book which is available in digital format for $5:

    https://store.americanvision.org/products/the-bounds-of-love-an-introduction-to-gods-law-of-liberty

    I thought it was pretty solid except for the some commentary on sexuality, which trots out the typical monogamy-only line and “divorce equality.”
    Disclaimer: I have a pretty good opinion of this strain of Theonomy except of course where it conflicts with the views of this blog. Basically, I think we would be much better off taking the whole Law seriously, minus the parts that have been fulfilled in Christ.

    It is also being posted for free in increments, not yet complete as of right now:
    http://americanvision.org/13762/the-bounds-of-love-master-table-of-contents/

    • moderncaleb says:

      It occurred to me – based on the principles in the book mentioned, your point #21 about sexual relations during the menstrual period would probably be considered abrogated as a “ritual cleanliness” standard, whereas the other points cover permanent ethical standards that would remain in force.

      • You may want to study that a bit more. The penalty was to be cut off from their people. The problem with assigning prohibitions to certain areas like “ritual cleanliness” is it’s arbitrary and God didn’t do that.

        So, if in good conscience you and your wife want to engage in penis-painting once a month and you feel that you are doing so by faith, go for it. The question you have to ask yourself though, is this: God said not to do it and put it in the same category with adultery, child sacrifice, bestiality, incest and male homosexuality. Is that really where you want to go?

  10. Pode says:

    As I’ve previously mentioned, I agree completely that sex with a virgin equals marriage and thus we have a disastrous epidemic of adultery that must be addressed. All my disagreements are offered in the spirit of sharpening iron and refining the arguments such that the concept of a little leaven spoiling the whole loaf cannot be used as an excuse to ignore that epidemic.

    At point 6, there does not appear to be an obvious prohibition against pedophilia, other than the law that is written on every human heart. This weakens the case for 16, 17, and 19.

    I’ve come around on the question of widow’s consenting to sex but not marriage, due to the prohibition against priests marrying whores. If harlotry is per se adultery, then of course priests couldn’t marry dead women stoned for adultery and there’s no reason for the prohibition to exist. So I’ll buy 16, 17, and 19, but eliminating the counterexample from 6 would help.

    • Pode, you touch on a major problem many have with Scripture. They don’t like what it says, much less what it doesn’t say. First, I’d want a definition for the term “pedophilia.”

      I’m not being disingenuous when I say that. To the best of my knowledge and understanding it was the father who decided when his daughter was ready to marry. While there are many historical examples of both sons and daughters being betrothed to marry at a very early age (8-10), there is the matter of when the marriage became a reality (consummation) and at what age. Again, this was typically the decision of the father.

      I’m assuming you’re using the term pedophilia only in the sense of prepubescent girls, rather than the inclusive pederasty which is categorically forbidden.

      Your point makes me wonder at the totality of the meaning of the term “eligible” as it is applied to virgins. In context eligible denotes the eligibility of a virgin to marry, but if the female is not yet a woman, could she be considered eligible to marry? I don’t have an answer to that and it is difficult for me (as the father of girls) to not engage in eisegesis. Given that the virgin has no agency and is not even a woman yet, would such an act be anything other than an assault?

      I do not have an answer to this. I know that Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is considered by many Christians to be horrible, in that an eligible virgin who taken by force (raped) is married to the man who raped her if they were discovered in the act. I also know that modern Christians are typically shocked at the fact that God does not have the act of coitus on a pedestal.

      As to point #6, I must stand by that because the act of coitus is the marriage act and by that act a man and woman are married. Therefore, any prohibition of that act between an eligible man and an eligible woman would be a prohibition on marriage. This is what the Church later implemented, creating a system in which the permission of a third party (the church and later, the state) was required in order to marry. That was completely contrary to Genesis 2:24, which gave that authority to the man, no-one else.

      This carries over to 1st Corinthians 6:15-16 which contains the only prohibition in all of Scripture that forbids a man from having sex with a prostitute. It is my personal belief that the Apostle Paul, writing on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, placed this prohibition in place because the men were abusing their authority. The authority to initiate marriage required that they not be restricted in engaging in the act of marriage as long as the woman was eligible. Yet, in their use of prostitutes, the men were engaging in the act of marriage with the one class of women who were eligible to marry but would not agree to marry them. In fact, her claim that they were married by that act would be viewed as ludicrous. Thus, they were abusing their authority purely for pleasure in order that they might satisfy their sexual needs without getting married.

      I am also of the opinion that Paul, writing on behalf of the Lord Jesus Christ, placed this prohibition in place because the Lord knew what was coming and made sure that the word ‘dabaq’ as used in Genesis 2:24 was properly defined in such a way that there was no way to deny that sex is the act that begins marriage.

      However, it is not my place to second-guess why the Lord chose to do that, it is my duty to obey. As He said, His yoke is light and His burden is easy. And if a man really just has to have sexual variety, taking a second wife is perfectly legitimate.

      The bottom line on this prohibition is that with the use of prostitutes off the table, any man who chooses to have sex with an eligible non-virgin is taking the chance that they will be married and are married if she agrees to the marriage. Better to choose carefully and marry the woman. Commensurate with the authority he has been given to initiate marriage, the man has full responsibility. Which is as it should be.

      As to men who have sex with prepubescent girls, I do not have a satisfactory answer in which I can cite anything from the Law other than what I have mentioned, I have only a belief that stands on Scripture (James 4:17): kill them with fire. As a father I believe that would be my duty should such a thing happen to my daughters because I believe it to be the right thing to do.

  11. Pode says:

    I was thinking of both a man with a prepubescent girl (which presumably would be a special case of a virgin without her father’s consent, which leads to an even more troubling conclusion for that case, the polar opposite of kill it with fire that you and I both would incline to) as well as an eligible woman with a prepubescent boy. A *man* shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, but what about a boy? Presumably, prior to the ritual of manhood (one more thing we need to restore), a boy’s vows are subject to review by his father and so the father can negate the marriage, but surely the woman is guilty of something? There would seem to be some piece of the sexual morality puzzle missing or improperly defined if it’s ok for an adult woman to diddle a little boy and claim him as her husband. That missing / improper piece may have ripple effects.

    I’ve had second thoughts about the widow’s consent thing since I commented. Any prostitute who didn’t have a death wish would make damn sure she would never be caught with a client by two or more witnesses. So it’s entirely possible there existed a pool of known prostitutes who could not be convicted (see Backpage.com) and stoned, and so priests had to be enjoined against marrying them even if prostitution was per se adultery. So in addition to all the discussion you just posted that I’ve not yet digested fully, i want to go back and revisit that question as well. Sometime soon.

    Thanks for much insight and thoughtful commentary to ponder. Hope I’m not wearing out my welcome by not keeping up with the pace.

  12. Sr. Pode, you do not trouble me. I desire to set aside the question of pedophilia for the moment because my knee-jerk reaction is to simply say (now that you clarified your inquiry) that eligibility issues would apply to both the boy and the girl. That, however, requires study.

    As to the subject of prostitution, I looked at this long and hard for quite a bit of time and I keep coming back to some basic points. First and foremost is that if there was no specific prohibition in the Law, there can be no violation and thus no sin. Within that context we are speaking of an issue that boils down to the physical act of coitus.

    Coitus is the act of marriage and certainly within marriage it is a licit activity, although within marriage there are certain restrictions on the act of coitus between husband and wife. Intercourse is forbidden when the wife is menstruating, as well as being forbidden after the birth of a child: 40 days for a boy and 80 days for a girl. It is forbidden for a man to marry sisters at the same time and it is forbidden for a man to have sex with both a mother and her daughter, or with a grandmother and granddaughter (Leviticus 18:17-18). Both of these regulations are forbidden as incest and it is not the man and either of the women who could commit incest, the regulation applies to the women who are brought together by the man. In other words, the regulations presume sexual contact between the wives within a polygynous marriage and incestuous contact is forbidden.

    Given the specific restrictions on coitus within marriage, if follows that any other act of coitus between husband and wife or even wife and wife married to the same man are licit. And Lord knows just about everyone has a problem with the women, but that’s what the book says.

    Outside marriage, some acts are specifically forbidden. The crime of adultery is defined as coitus with another man’s wife. Likewise, coitus with a woman who is engaged to be married would likewise be adultery. Coitus with a close family member or certain others is forbidden as incest. Coitus with any animal by either a man or a woman is unilaterally forbidden, as is any form of sexual activity between men. Of sexual acts between women, other than the aforementioned prohibition against incest, nothing was forbidden.

    Then we have the interesting prohibition on cult prostitution, both male and female (Deuteronomy 23:17). This prohibition is interesting within the context of this discussion because the first one seems redundant. Both male homosexuality and idolatry were already forbidden as death-penalty offenses. Could it be that particular restriction applies to child prostitution in which either the boy or girl is not of age and cannot be held responsible for their actions? I don’t know, but the prohibition seems redundant otherwise.

    We also see the specific prohibition against a father making his daughter a prostitute (Leviticus 19:29). There is no point in forbidding a father from making his daughter a prostitute if he does not have the capacity to do so. We see from Exodus 21:7-10 that a father has the authority to sell his daughter to be another man’s concubine. We see from Numbers 30:5 that a father can forbid his daughter’s marriage after the fact if she was seduced (Exodus 22:17). She would no longer be a virgin and thus be damaged goods. One thing the father is forbidden to do at that point is put her to work on her back.

    Thus, within marriage we have certain restrictions on sex and aside from that which is forbidden, all else is licit. Outside marriage, certain acts are forbidden. The question is whether those acts which are not forbidden are licit. Logically and according to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, that which is not forbidden is licit.

    The question remains, does coitus automatically create a marriage for a woman who is not a virgin. I argue that absent an agreement to marry, the act of coitus, alone, cannot create a marriage for a woman who is no longer a virgin.

    1. Agency. Numbers 30:3-5 is specific as to the authority of the father over his daughter and Exodus 22:17 clarifies that even if a daughter’s agreement to marry resulted in the act of marriage, the father (in the day he heard of it) had the authority to forbid her agreement, thus nullifying the resulting marriage. He refused the agreement to marry for her and thus the sex did not create a marriage. Numbers 30:9 is very specific in detailing that the widow and divorced woman have agency, in that there is no-one with the authority to review their agreements. Whatever agreement or vow they make is binding on them. It follows that they cannot be bound by an agreement they did not make. Likewise, the Apostle Paul (in 1st Corinthians 7:39) is clear that the woman who is no longer bound is free to choose whom she might marry, only in the Lord.

    If the father has the authority to refuse marriage to the extent that the act of coitus did not make her married and the widow or divorced woman has the same authority over themselves, how can they be married unless they agree to be married? It stands to reason that if the father had the authority to refuse agreement and thereafter sex did not make the virgin married, then the refusal to agree by the non-virgin was sufficient to prevent marriage.

    2. No evidence that a prostitute was automatically guilty of adultery. A prostitute certainly could be guilty of adultery, but the question is whether the first customer would, with the act of coitus, create a marriage. The fact that adultery was a death-penalty offense is the point here because there had to be two or more witnesses. While normally this made being stoned to death for adultery fairly rare, everyone knew who the prostitutes were and it wouldn’t be difficult to wait for the customer to arrive, kick the door in a bit later a few witnesses and that’s the end of that. Yet, we have zero record of any of that kind of thing. You’d think that there would be something in the book of Proverbs, but the warnings are about adultery.

    Given the way women hate prostitutes, it stands to reason that there would be some record of this kind of thing happening.

    3. In the New Testament, the word porne is used 6 times to describe a literal physical prostitute. Twice Jesus said that the prostitutes and tax collectors would go to heaven before the elders of the temple. Note that collecting taxes could be an honest job if the tax collectors only collected what was owed. Jesus said that. Could not prostitution likewise be a legitimate way to earn a living as long as they didn’t participate in idolatry or commit adultery? For do you not know that the adulterers shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven? Twice the righteous prostitute Rahab was mentioned. Once the term is used in the parable of the prodigal son. The other instance is in 1st Corinthians 6:16. Why, if prostitution was synonymous with adultery, did the Apostle Paul prohibit “joining the members of Christ to a prostitute” in that passage? Given that there is no prohibition in the Law forbidding sex with a prostitute, why the new restriction? Why not just call it adultery and be done with it? Why is there not a single negative mention of prostitution other than the prohibition against using their services, which only applied to Christian men?

    I further notice that there not a single prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a woman from working as a prostitute, regardless of her status. Slave or free, Christian or non-Christian, there is no prohibition. I conclude that as long as a woman is not otherwise guilty of sin, prostitution is a righteous way for a woman to earn a living. As I’ve mentioned, there are far more restrictions on farming than on prostitution and as long as a farmer obeys the restrictions he (or she) is engaged in a righteous activity. As long as the woman is not engaged in idolatry, incest or adultery, there is no prohibition on prostitution.

  13. Renee Harris says:

    Toad toad marry i email you about a personal problem That will explain whole three-year-old thing?

  14. Pode says:

    Had a little more time to reread your 5:15 response. I was unclear, apologies. When I referred to point 6, I meant the last sentence. “According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the lack of prohibition means the act is not a sin.” This is the reason for my raising the concern with true pedophilia. I’m approaching that from the standpoint that sex with a prepubescent has to be a sin, thus there has to be a prohibition we missed somewhere, and that prohibition may shed light on other issues. If there’s no prohibition, then we’re stuck arguing either that pedophilia is not a sin, or that some things that are not prohibited are nonetheless sin. Which is a problem for arguing that other unpopular things are allowed on the basis of them not being forbidden.

    As you say, this requires study. Much as I would like to set the question of “Is pedophilia a sin?” aside as a settled “The fuck is wrong with you for even asking, sicko?”, it could undermine a lot of the case you’ve built on the thesis that that which is not prohibited is allowed and I think the study is a priority.

    Unfortunately one of many I have atm. The particular divorcee is going to be in the hospital for most of the next week, including the birthday she shares with my niece. Prayers would be appreciated.

    Parting thought: a tithe of the wages of farmers is not forbidden as an abomination unto the Lord the way the wages of prostitutes and catamites are. Temple sex workers or just regular ones?

    • Pode, related to a previous comment, I emailed you.

      There is another point I don’t recall bringing up in a long time that will apply to this as well. There are only two offenses in which the guilty parties are burned with fire.

      I’ve actually seen this as a criticism of poly marriage before, but in Leviticus 20:14, there is a difference between this point and the one made in Leviticus 18:17. An important one.

      “If there is a man who marries a woman and her mother, it is immorality; both he and they shall be burned with fire, so that there will be no immorality in your midst.”

      There are no ages indicated, but the act of sexual intercourse with the eligible virgin is what makes her married. This very handily covers a man who has sex with his daughter and it would cover both incest and pedophilia, hence the burn them with fire.

      Just as with the Deuteronomy 22:28-29 passage requiring the marriage of the man to the eligible virgin he raped into marriage, this instruction is sure to offend the sensibilities of many. The idea that the innocent young woman would be put to death because her mother allowed such a thing to happen and didn’t scream like a buggered monkey when her father decided to do this is not nice.

      Can we therefore draw some understanding that such an act will forever damage the woman in ways we do not understand? I don’t know, but given the way some women are these days who claim to have been raped by their fathers (I’ve met three- and I realize they may have all been making it up), perhaps so.

      The other offense in which the guilty party is to be burned with fire is from Leviticus 21:9, the daughter of any priest who profanes herself with harlotry (zannah) and thereby profanes him. She is to be burned with fire. And… that word harlotry… doesn’t mean what most people think it means, it’s either adultery or idolatry. Probably both.

  15. RichardP says:

    @AT: “There are some who make the argument that the Law of Moses applies only to the Hebrew people, but this is incorrect …”

    What follows is rhetorical – something for all to think about and maybe discuss, but I am not presenting this because I want a response from you.

    Imagine that you are in the jail cell with Paul and Silas when the earthquake strikes and the doors to the jail are opened (Acts 16:30-31). Imagine also that Moses is there with you in the jail cell (and has no knowledge of the world past the date of his death). Imagine further that the jailer addressed his question to all of you: “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?”

    1. Could Moses answer that question without making reference to the Law of Moses (based on what he knew when he died)?
    2. What was Paul and Silas’ response? Did Paul and Silas answer that question without making reference to the Law of Moses?
    3. Would you have made reference to the Law of Moses in answering that question?

    What happened between the time of Moses and Paul and Silas that makes the difference in how they answered the question “What must I do to be saved”? What has happened between Paul and Silas’ time and now that makes it necessary for us to do what Paul and Silas did not – include the Law of Moses in any answer to the question “What must I do to be saved”?

    Those who think the Law of Moses has anything to do with our salvation ** today have missed the entire signifigance of God giving his Son to be put up on the Cross as the final sacrifice, the significance of the Veil in the Temple being torn in two, and the significance of the Holy Spirt in calling us to repentence (as discussed extensively by Paul).

    ** Please note: in terms of “Christianity”, if it (“it” = whatever) has nothing to do with our salvation, what is the point of arguing over it? If Paul and Silas made no reference to the Law of Moses when answering the question “What must I do to be saved”, and if we can trust that their answer was from God speaking through them, then why do we need to argue whether the Law of Moses applies to us today? If ignoring the Law of Moses will not destroy our salvation, why do we need to argue over the relevance of the Law of Moses? And if ignoring the Law of Moses will destroy our salvation, why did Paul and Silas not mention this fact to the jailer?

    Remember – rhetorical questions all – only meant to stimulate thinking. Not designed to elicit an argument.

    • Interesting questions, RichardP

      “What must I do to be saved?”

      The logical answer is “From what?”

      If the answer is “sin” in any way, then please reference Romans 4:15 and 5:13.

      Now , I trust you’ve meditated on Paul’s statement that where there is no Law, there can be no violation and without a violation there is no sin imputed, but some have difficulty with the Apostle Paul. John, the disciple whom Jesus loved made a similarly disturbing statement in 1st John 2:3-4:

      “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him”

      What commandments are these that John refers to? Is not Jesus the Word made flesh? Is the Law not part of His Word? Are they not His commandments?

      But you’ll notice, if you read the referenced passage, that Paul said sin was in the world before there was Law. What about that sin? It seems to be somewhat of a dichotomy, does it not? Actually, it isn’t. By salvation in Christ we become servants of our Master who purchased us with His blood. We are now members of His household (members of His body). In other words, the Law did not change, our status did.

      With that in mind, look at Romans 14 and try wrapping your head around verse 23:

      “whatever is not from faith is sin.”

      How about James 4:17?

      “To one who knows the right thing to do, and does not do it, to him it is sin.”

      Ooops… Looks like us Christians are in a tough spot. Back when there was a Temple, once a year the High Priest made atonement for all the sin of all the people in the nation. In other words, even if the individual did nothing else, their slate got wiped clean once a year. Could a person under the Law be described as righteous? Better check with Jesus on that…

      Christians are held to a higher and individual standard. We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to work with our conscience. But… my conscience isn’t the same as your conscience and you are not to judge me by the standard of your conscience.

      Which brings us to the famous dichotomy of “don’t judge” versus “judge.” I won’t be following that rabbit trail because I have a post coming up about that. However, what both Paul and James are talking about are issues of conscience. Perhaps it is a sin for RichardP to have more than one wife, or to have sex with an eligible woman outside the bounds of marriage because of ignorance and thus lack of faith. For others it may not be a sin in any way because these things are neither forbidden by the Law and do not violate the conscience of some.

      I suspect the reason Churchians get their tits in an uproar when it comes to me is because deep down they know they’re guilty as soon as I tell the truth. As an example, the fact women are married when the girl gives away her virginity means probably a minimum of 80% of Churchians are adulterers. Just look around the congregation of any given church on Sunday morning and try telling me that at least 80% of the so-called “married” women didn’t give their virginity to a man other than the one they had a wedding with.

      Adultery is contrary to the Law, which by definition makes it immorality and is cause to be removed from the assembly of believers. And as long as her husband is still alive, it’s the sin that keeps on happening every time she spreads her legs for any other man. Instead of dealing with their own sin, Churchians invent sins that aren’t violations and then judge others over it.

      A couple of flaming homosexual men can show up for Sunday services and they’ll be received gently. Let a polygynous Christian family show up and they’ll be quietly asked to leave afterward if not refused fellowship from the start. They just can’t handle the possibilities involved with a marriage like that… Like if their husband was late getting home, the girls were horny and decided to get warmed up without him. If the Churchians comprehended that, they would be apoplectic because even though God does not have a problem with that activity, it offends them oh-so deeply.

      And even though the Churchians were commanded not to judge, they do so anyway.

      And I’m not afraid to point this out. Churchians are known for their hate.

      • SnapperTrx says:

        I had a discussion over this not that long ago with another Christian. Those who know Him keep His commandments. Great! Now where do we find His commandments? No one would argue that “The 10 Commandments” are part of “His commandments”, as are commandments about incest or murder, but bring up commandments about certain other things, like the ones AT talks about here and suddenly your legalistic! I wonder what a persons face would look like if I told them I wanted to murder someone and, upon telling me that I am a Christian and I shouldn’t say that, I told them they were just being legalistic? It seems like the commandments that seem easier to follow are officially “His Commandments” by church standards, while the others are legalism. If what AT has pointed out regarding marriage is true, and scripture certainly seems to back it up, then what do you think the church would do when it was pointed out? Aside from kicking your butt out the door they would find some way to weasel around the fact which means what? Perhaps they don’t know Him after all. Pretty brutal stuff.

        And AT is, unfortunately, very right in that those in sin would be readily welcomed into a church while those who are doing what scripture says, black and white, no “adjustments” or “interpretations” would be shunned and ridiculed for being backward.

  16. marlon says:

    As for the pedo thing, this may be instructive:

    [Eze 16:4-8 KJV]
    4 And [as for] thy nativity, in the day thou wast born thy navel was not cut, neither wast thou washed in water to supple [thee]; thou wast not salted at all, nor swaddled at all.
    5 None eye pitied thee, to do any of these unto thee, to have compassion upon thee;
    but thou wast cast out in the open field, to the loathing of thy person, in the day that thou wast born.
    6 And when I passed by thee, and saw thee polluted in thine own blood,
    I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood,
    Live; yea, I said unto thee [when thou wast] in thy blood, Live.
    7 I have caused thee to multiply as the bud of the field, and thou hast increased and waxen great, and thou art come to excellent ornaments: [thy] breasts are fashioned, and thine hair is grown, whereas thou [wast] naked and bare.
    8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time [was] the time of love;
    And I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness:
    Yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

    Here physical maturity rather than age is the focus.

  17. SnapperTrx says:

    I have been reading through Leviticus for the past few nights and it, along with reading some of your blog has got me to wondering:

    What does ‘the law’ mean for a born again Christian?

    99% of the time if you bring up ‘the law’ to BAC’s the automatic response is that we are no longer under the law and that to bring it up is just legalism. Yet Jesus said that he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law, meaning what? For Christians under grace we don’t need to fulfill the law for our salvation (not that we could have), we have been given salvation through the blood of Jesus (amen!), but then what do we do with ‘the law’? Hebrews says “for the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law”, yet the law of the OT is still holy, and those things in the law that offended God are still offensive (unless otherwise noted, ie: eating things previously unclean). What then does a BAC do with regards to the law?

    Obviously we still observe certain laws such as the ones against incest, but were I to point out some of the things listed in this article (ie: marriage initiated via penetration of a virgin, even if she is raped) I would be derided and told that ‘the law’ of the old Testament no longer applies because Jesus died on the cross. Thus we get people selectively observing parts of the law while ignoring others!

    So then what? Jesus says that if we love him we will keep his commandments. Is the law not his commandments? Though we are not given salvation by the keeping of the law, shouldn’t we WANT to follow it because it pleases God? I have to admit that this has been puzzling me for some time.

    • It’s a bit more serious than “shouldn’t we want to…” because of 1st John 2:3-4.

      “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him”

      I’m working on a post about this right now, it’s a bit complicated and is taking time. However, let’s look past the Law for a moment and look at the Noahic Covenant. The Covenant God made with Noah applies to all people of all times and all nations. It includes the issues I discuss again and again concerning sexual morality. Traditionally, there are seven points to the Noahic Covenant:

      Do not deny God.
      Do not blaspheme God.
      Do not murder.
      Do not engage in incest, adultery, pederasty or bestiality.[8]
      Do not steal.
      Do not eat of a live animal.
      Establish courts/legal system to ensure obedience to the law.

      Regardless of how Churchians and Christians might feel about “The Law” and whether it applies today, there is no getting around the commands, laws and judgments God gave up through the covenant with Noah. In other words, everything that has to do with sexual morality applies. And, if you look at it carefully, what sins do people commit that were not covered in Genesis?

      • Pode says:

        Followed the link trail on Noahide Law a little (TIL, thanks). My speculation based on what I found down that rabbit hole is that a ban on pedophilia derives thusly:
        IF “for this reason” in Gen 2:24 refers to Gen 1:28 “Be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth…”
        AND IF A prepubescent cannot be fruitful,
        THEN cleaving her is forbidden as she physically cannot fulfill her role as wife.
        This interpretation ties into your read on the question of the natural role of women and the related topic of lesbianism.

        So I found my (admittedly implied only) ban on pedophilia and can rest easy. What does that add to the discussion on other sexual behavior? It implies that cleaving for other reasons is not ok, which veers towards traditional Easter Bunny territory. I would argue that once the initial cleaving is done and the covenant formed, recreational re-cleaving during the permitted times is fine and even commanded as part of finding joy in your work of being fruitful. Catch is that the initial cleaving would have to be done with the intent of making her a wife and being fruitful with her, which is in line with Christ’s teaching that a man should either marry or cut his balls off.
        As we’ve gone over elsewhere, an eligible non-virgin can in fact consent to sex without consenting to marry. She can’t make a marriage covenant using her hymen as intended, so she has to make a different, verbal, covenant vow. So it’s ok for a woman to be a non-idolatrous prostitute, and we already knew explicitly that Christians are not permitted to use prostitutes. I think the interpretation necessary to make Gen 2:24 act as a ban on pedophilia also makes it a ban on all men using all prostitutes. Which would explain why the prostitute’s earnings are not allowed as donations to the temple. *She* hasn’t sinned, but the earnings are still the result of her clients sinning. So I think this is a harmonious reading.

        It hinges on 2:24 referring to 1:28. The more natural reading is that 2:24 refers to 2:18-23, that the reason is because it is not good for man to be alone, he needs a suitable companion. Can you expand a bit on why you assert the 1:28 reference in your master chart? That thing is begging to be recrafted into a hyperlinked PDF slideshow such that it can actually be read, BTW.

  18. Pingback: Ho, ho, ho. | Toad's Hall

  19. Pode says:

    One counterargument to my last comment is that Samson used a prostitute in Judges 16:1 and did not break his Nazirite vow to be holy to the Lord by doing so, and from Heb 11 we know he received divine approval.
    Counter counter argument is that from Heb 11:40 we know he was still not made perfect in God despite divine approval, others in that hall of fame list definitely sinned, and the Nazirite vow in Num 6 concerns grapes, razors, and dead bodies, with no mention of sex. So his use of a prostitute isn’t definitive evidence either way.

    In any case, this is of secondary importance since regardless Christian men are forbidden to use hookers

  20. Pode says:

    At point 21, Lev 15:24 may be a source of confusion. In context of the other 2 verses you cite in point 21, 15:24 appears to refer to non-sexual sharing of the bed and getting some of the flow on him, which carries a penalty of 1 week of ritual uncleanness instead of permanent exile. Probably to reduce the temptation to violate 20:18.

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