What is fornication?

[FollowingHim]

Interesting argument. Are you basing that on Leviticus 19:20?

The woman in this verse is not a concubine. It clearly states that she was "betrothed" only. Yes, in other circumstances sleeping with a betrothed woman would merit the death penalty, and in this case it does not. But it's not talking about a concubine, but rather a betrothed slave - not yet a concubine. As I read it, from this status she could either become a concubine, or be freed and released from both her bondage and her betrothal (and become available for another man).

I see this as talking about the case where, for example, a man purchases a slave for himself or another male in the household (e.g. his son) with the intention of her becoming their concubine. If he'd just purchased her as a generic slave, not for anybody in particular, she might be fair game for the first man in the household that wanted to claim her. But in this case she's off limits because she's promised to a specific man - though the punishment is less because as a slave, sleeping with her is not considered quite as terrible as sleeping with a free woman, though still wrong. If after actually having her in the household for a while they decide they don't want to actually take her as a concubine, they could free her as per Lev 19:20, and she'd then be available for another man. But until and unless she is freed, she's off limits, even though she's a slave, because she's promised to somebody already.

I could be wrong, this might be about a concubine. But to show from this verse that a concubine is not married to her man, you have to assume:

1. The woman described here is a concubine (debatable as outlined above), and
2. It did not result in death specifically "because she was not married to her master", and not for any other hypothetical reason.

I can imagine the lesser punishment as compared to sleeping with a betrothed free woman would be due to most such offences occurring between a man in the household and a slave he spent a lot of time around, and both just conveniently "forgot" her betrothal to another and got carried away in the heat of the moment. Due to their close contact the situation is a bit more understandable, and also likely a lot more common, than sleeping with a free woman who was betrothed to another. The lesser punishment seems to me to be a compassionate recognition of the circumstances, where she is accustomed to obey this man as one of the household, and he is easily carried away because the temptation to have her is so frequent and easy to fall for since they're already living in the same household. It's likely a far more common situation than adultery with a betrothed free woman, and killing everyone who fell into it could have been detrimental to the population...

 

[Keith Martin]

All this talk and back and forth, yet no one is asking the important question....

The wife and I very recently had strong debate over the topic of female to female physical intimacy/ sexual interaction. I get her a bit fired up if I point out that the Biblie is basically silent on the issue. In fact, the one passage from Romans chapter 1 that is so commonly used to preach against such behavior actually seems to be discouraging anal sex rather.

Be brave men... Am I way off?
Cuz to me it seems like it was important to the Lord for Him to list all restricted forms of sexual interactions... yet this one is left out?

@rustywest4
That topic comes up from time to time, the general conclusion is usually that the Bible doesn't condemn it so it can't be pronounced sinful at least within the context of marriage, but that doesn't mean it's something being promoted either. Just an issue that is so unimportant to God that He didn't even bother to clarify it in scripture, so something for each man to decide what will or will not occur under his roof.

Just wondering if sometimes we assume that something is unimportant to God because it is unimportant to some of us as individuals . . .

That something isn't mentioned far from demonstrates that it's unimportant, to God or to us. Anuses are rarely mentioned in Scripture, but without them we'd have a hard time lasting long enough to learn how to walk, much less read or preach. And, as I know you fully realize, FollowingHim, not only Scripture but other quality literature not infrequently uses the device of mentioning everything but The Thing in Question to place stark-contrast attention on That Thing That Isn't Mentioned. It is, in fact, a frequent explanation for Things That Go Without Saying. The superior beauty of women making out with each other over similar behavior between men is one of those Things.

Having said all that, I am in agreement with those who emphasized that such behavior is best restricted to a relationship in which the women are both/all married -- and to the same man. Or at least betrothed. Or maybe going steady.

 

[faithinhim]

Interesting argument. Are you basing that on Leviticus 19:20?

The woman in this verse is not a concubine. It clearly states that she was "betrothed" only. Yes, in other circumstances sleeping with a betrothed woman would merit the death penalty, and in this case it does not. But it's not talking about a concubine, but rather a betrothed slave - not yet a concubine. As I read it, from this status she could either become a concubine, or be freed and released from both her bondage and her betrothal (and become available for another man).

I see this as talking about the case where, for example, a man purchases a slave for himself or another male in the household (e.g. his son) with the intention of her becoming their concubine. If he'd just purchased her as a generic slave, not for anybody in particular, she might be fair game for the first man in the household that wanted to claim her. But in this case she's off limits because she's promised to a specific man - though the punishment is less because as a slave, sleeping with her is not considered quite as terrible as sleeping with a free woman, though still wrong. If after actually having her in the household for a while they decide they don't want to actually take her as a concubine, they could free her as per Lev 19:20, and she'd then be available for another man. But until and unless she is freed, she's off limits, even though she's a slave, because she's promised to somebody already.

I could be wrong, this might be about a concubine. But to show from this verse that a concubine is not married to her man, you have to assume:

1. The woman described here is a concubine (debatable as outlined above), and
2. It did not result in death specifically "because she was not married to her master", and not for any other hypothetical reason.

I can imagine the lesser punishment as compared to sleeping with a betrothed free woman would be due to most such offences occurring between a man in the household and a slave he spent a lot of time around, and both just conveniently "forgot" her betrothal to another and got carried away in the heat of the moment. Due to their close contact the situation is a bit more understandable, and also likely a lot more common, than sleeping with a free woman who was betrothed to another. The lesser punishment seems to me to be a compassionate recognition of the circumstances, where she is accustomed to obey this man as one of the household, and he is easily carried away because the temptation to have her is so frequent and easy to fall for since they're already living in the same household. It's likely a far more common situation than adultery with a betrothed free woman, and killing everyone who fell into it could have been detrimental to the population...

I understand what you're saying, but betrothed means pledged one can be pledged to marry or pledged to be a slave. And the context here is slavery. And concubines could be offered up by their master to give sex this was a form of hospitality. The story of the Levite and the concubine is a good example of this. The penalty of Lev. 19:20 is when permission isn't granted and sex occurs. The word for "wife" in Greek and Hebrew can also mean wife it can also be singular or plural so the context is important. I've written about this in Sex In the Bible the Untold Truth it's a free ebook available on Kindle and other apps.

 

[faithinhim]

I understand what you're saying, but betrothed means pledged one can be pledged to marry or pledged to be a slave. And the context here is slavery. And concubines could be offered up by their master to give sex this was a form of hospitality. The story of the Levite and the concubine is a good example of this. The penalty of Lev. 19:20 is when permission isn't granted and sex occurs. The word for "wife" in Greek and Hebrew can also mean wife it can also be singular or plural so the context is important. I've written about this in Sex In the Bible the Untold Truth it's a free ebook available on Kindle and other apps.

Excuse me I meant to say the Hebrew and Greek word for "wife" can mean "woman" or "women." When scripture says Abraham took Hagar to "wife" doesn't mean he married her, it's simply an idiom. Because later on God tells him he should listen to Sarah and let Hagar go, no divorce is mentioned because she was always a slave, she was simply let free.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Excuse me I meant to say the Hebrew and Greek word for "wife" can mean "woman" or "women." When scripture says Abraham took Hagar to "wife" doesn't mean he married her, it's simply an idiom. Because later on God tells him he should listen to Sarah and let Hagar go, no divorce is mentioned because she was always a slave, she was simply let free.

I’d suggest more in-depth research on this idea. Specifically about the correlation between a bond maid and pilegash.
These conditions were exactly what was to happen when one took to wife his bondmaid and then either failed to or refused to provide the foundational three for her.

The pilegash was a bond maid that had been converted to a wife.

 

[Cap]

Excuse me I meant to say the Hebrew and Greek word for "wife" can mean "woman" or "women." When scripture says Abraham took Hagar to "wife" doesn't mean he married her, it's simply an idiom. Because later on God tells him he should listen to Sarah and let Hagar go, no divorce is mentioned because she was always a slave, she was simply let free.

Paul in Gal. 4 seems to think there is more to the Sarah/Hagar story.

 

[faithinhim]

I’d suggest more in-depth research on this idea. Specifically about the correlation between a bond maid and pilegash.
These conditions were exactly what was to happen when one took to wife his bondmaid and then either failed to or refused to provide the foundational three for her.

The pilegash was a bond maid that had been converted to a wife.

I have a whole chapter on concubines

Paul in Gal. 4 seems to think there is more to the Sarah/Hagar story.

I discuss Sarah and Hagar in more detail.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I have a whole chapter on concubines

That’s nice and all, but its apparent to me from previous comments that you have some holes in your understanding. As a man with limited time and and extensive list of books I want to read, I’m sure you’ll understand if I’m not waiting breathlessly.

If you wanna condense the ideas and reasons why in a post, thats probably a different matter.

 

[faithinhim]

I’d suggest more in-depth research on this idea. Specifically about the correlation between a bond maid and pilegash.
These conditions were exactly what was to happen when one took to wife his bondmaid and then either failed to or refused to provide the foundational three for her.

The pilegash was a bond maid that had been converted to a wife.

From Young's literal
7‘And when a man selleth his daughter for a handmaid, she doth not go out according to the going out of the men-servants; 8if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her. 9‘And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he doth to her. 10‘If another [woman] he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw; 11and if these three he do not to her, then she hath gone out for nought, without money.

I see nowhere in scripture where a bond maid is converted to a wife, of course I am open to correction. Scripture does state that if he purchases her for his son he treats her as a daughter. The context from verse 7 is clearly slavery. I've read nothing that states that she can be converted to a wife. If she does not receive food, clothing or shelter she can go free, no divorce is mentioned because she isn't married.

When Nathan rebukes David, his concubines are called "wives" and he is told that someone will sleep with his "wives" publicly. Absalom sleeps with David's concubines for all to see. Absalom is killed in battle later on. Why didn't David have his "wives" put to death for adultery? There were plenty of witnesses. David essentially keeps them under house arrest and never has sex with them again. But how can this be? If they are his wives he cannot withhold from them. On the other hand, if they are concubines (slaves) he is only required to give them food, clothing and shelter as the above law mentions. It also explains why he didn't put them to death because having sex with a slave didn't result in death. As mentioned before "wife" can also mean "woman" the context makes the distinction clear.

The context here is that David took his wives and left fearing for his life. He leaves behind his female slaves (concubines) not knowing this would fulfill the prophecy Nathan stated against him. Absalom has sex with his father's royal harem making himself the new king. If Absalom would have had sex openly with his wives how could he have even considered ruling if he committed such a public sin? This isn't an issue for me or anyone who believes that concubines are slaves.

The question for you and other people who believe that concubines are wives is: How do you reconcile David's concubines?

 

[Cap]

Hagar was more than a slave/concubine, and even though she is not specifically said to be Abraham wife, it is clear that she does have a rule that goes along with the concept of wife.


Galatians 4:21-31

Hagar and Sarah

21 Tell me, you who want to be under the law, are you not aware of what the law says? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. 23 His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise.

24 These things are being taken figuratively: The women represent two covenants. One covenant is from Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. 27 For it is written:

“Be glad, barren woman,
you who never bore a child;
shout for joy and cry aloud,
you who were never in labor;
because more are the children of the desolate woman
than of her who has a husband.”a]">[a]

28 Now you, brothers and sisters, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 At that time the son born according to the flesh persecuted the son born by the power of the Spirit. It is the same now. 30 But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”b]">[b] 31 Therefore, brothers and sisters, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

 

[FollowingHim]

I see nowhere in scripture where a bond maid is converted to a wife, of course I am open to correction.

We can get a bit confused by the terminology. There is ultimately no word for "wife", rather simply "woman". A woman belonging to a man is translated as "wife" in modern English (in old English the word "wife" also just meant woman, as in Hebrew). So, a woman a man is sleeping with is his woman. Whether she's a slave, or came in free, she's his woman. Those details will affect aspects of the relationship (most critically inheritence), but ultimately if she's his woman, she's his woman. Ie, his "wife" in translation. All are therefore wives. It's not some complex process whereby a bondmaid is "converted to a wife". She just is as soon as he starts sleeping with her, because that's just the word for it.

When Nathan rebukes David, his concubines are called "wives" and he is told that someone will sleep with his "wives" publicly. Absalom sleeps with David's concubines for all to see. Absalom is killed in battle later on. Why didn't David have his "wives" put to death for adultery?

Because the death penalty only applied to a wife who wilfully committed adultery. In the case of rape, only the man got the death penalty. Rape being defined as when the woman cried out for help, with the benefit of the doubt given to the woman (if it happened away from people, it is assumed she cried out for help even though nobody heard, and therefore only the man died). In this case, it is very clear that Absalom chose to sleep with them all to prove a point, not because the women were in any way attracted to him. What he did was rape - and those many witnesses would have attested to that. So only Absalom would get the death penalty, and he was already dead.

Note that I take this from Deuteronomy 22:22-27, and technically in this passage the rape provision is only applied to a betrothed woman. However I think it is entirely reasonable to extend it to marriage also in the light of God's character. To apply v22 completely legalistically even in the case of rape would be insane.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

From Young's literal
7‘And when a man selleth his daughter for a handmaid, she doth not go out according to the going out of the men-servants; 8if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her. 9‘And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he doth to her. 10‘If another [woman] he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw; 11and if these three he do not to her, then she hath gone out for nought, without money.

I see nowhere in scripture where a bond maid is converted to a wife, of course I am open to correction. Scripture does state that if he purchases her for his son he treats her as a daughter. The context from verse 7 is clearly slavery. I've read nothing that states that she can be converted to a wife. If she does not receive food, clothing or shelter she can go free, no divorce is mentioned because she isn't married.

When Nathan rebukes David, his concubines are called "wives" and he is told that someone will sleep with his "wives" publicly. Absalom sleeps with David's concubines for all to see. Absalom is killed in battle later on. Why didn't David have his "wives" put to death for adultery? There were plenty of witnesses. David essentially keeps them under house arrest and never has sex with them again. But how can this be? If they are his wives he cannot withhold from them. On the other hand, if they are concubines (slaves) he is only required to give them food, clothing and shelter as the above law mentions. It also explains why he didn't put them to death because having sex with a slave didn't result in death. As mentioned before "wife" can also mean "woman" the context makes the distinction clear.

The context here is that David took his wives and left fearing for his life. He leaves behind his female slaves (concubines) not knowing this would fulfill the prophecy Nathan stated against him. Absalom has sex with his father's royal harem making himself the new king. If Absalom would have had sex openly with his wives how could he have even considered ruling if he committed such a public sin? This isn't an issue for me or anyone who believes that concubines are slaves.

The question for you and other people who believe that concubines are wives is: How do you reconcile David's concubines?

So, I hear your reasoning, but know that you are coming to a faulty conclusion due to primarily a lack of information regarding the Jewish Culture which exacerbates several logical fallacies in what you’ve presented.

I’ll reiterate that I’d suggest more in depth research on this topic, specifically about a bond maid or hand maid and a pilegash.

 

[rockfox]

I see nowhere in scripture where a bond maid is converted to a wife, of course I am open to correction. Scripture does state that if he purchases her for his son he treats her as a daughter. The context from verse 7 is clearly slavery. I've read nothing that states that she can be converted to a wife.

This is where you get in trouble by not understanding the culture and not looking at the original language behind the translation. "he hath not betrothed her" indicates that she was acquired with the intention of making her his women (i.e. wife, concubine, etc). Hence why it is deceitful if he sells her off.

 

[The Revolting Man]

From Young's literal
7‘And when a man selleth his daughter for a handmaid, she doth not go out according to the going out of the men-servants; 8if evil in the eyes of her lord, so that he hath not betrothed her, then he hath let her be ransomed; to a strange people he hath not power to sell her, in his dealing treacherously with her. 9‘And if to his son he betroth her, according to the right of daughters he doth to her. 10‘If another [woman] he take for him, her food, her covering, and her habitation, he doth not withdraw; 11and if these three he do not to her, then she hath gone out for nought, without money.

I see nowhere in scripture where a bond maid is converted to a wife, of course I am open to correction. Scripture does state that if he purchases her for his son he treats her as a daughter. The context from verse 7 is clearly slavery. I've read nothing that states that she can be converted to a wife. If she does not receive food, clothing or shelter she can go free, no divorce is mentioned because she isn't married.

When Nathan rebukes David, his concubines are called "wives" and he is told that someone will sleep with his "wives" publicly. Absalom sleeps with David's concubines for all to see. Absalom is killed in battle later on. Why didn't David have his "wives" put to death for adultery? There were plenty of witnesses. David essentially keeps them under house arrest and never has sex with them again. But how can this be? If they are his wives he cannot withhold from them. On the other hand, if they are concubines (slaves) he is only required to give them food, clothing and shelter as the above law mentions. It also explains why he didn't put them to death because having sex with a slave didn't result in death. As mentioned before "wife" can also mean "woman" the context makes the distinction clear.

The context here is that David took his wives and left fearing for his life. He leaves behind his female slaves (concubines) not knowing this would fulfill the prophecy Nathan stated against him. Absalom has sex with his father's royal harem making himself the new king. If Absalom would have had sex openly with his wives how could he have even considered ruling if he committed such a public sin? This isn't an issue for me or anyone who believes that concubines are slaves.

The question for you and other people who believe that concubines are wives is: How do you reconcile David's concubines?

I do not have the emotional energy for another knock down drag out fight right now and there is a LOT of stuff on here about the concubine debate but the first question that comes to my mind in regards to your Absalom question is what makes you think any of that was conducted in a way that reflected God's plan for marriage and concubines? That was one giant sin-fest from start to finish. It was a living example of the wages of sin being death and under no circumstance should it be taken as an example of how God wants us to conduct our lives.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

Deut. 23:17 bans temple prostitution

I can find no mention of Temple prostitution or temple prostitution in this passage.

It appears to me to ban prostitution though, whether it’s your son or your daughter. Don’t do it.

 

[Pacman]

I can find no mention of Temple prostitution or temple prostitution in this passage.

It appears to me to ban prostitution though, whether it’s your son or your daughter. Don’t do it.

Definition of sodomite

Brown-Driver-Briggs' Definition

1. male temple prostitute
   

 

[FollowingHim]

The word for "whore" in that verse is also the feminine of the word for male temple prostitute (confusingly translated sodomite). Both are derived from the word "qadash", meaning sanctify / dedicate / hallow: in other words both words specifically refer to someone who is set apart for service of a god, ie a temple prostitute very specifically. This verse is very specifically talking about temple prostitution.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I’m sure there must be some connection that I’m missing between the passage in Deuteronomy 23 and a male temple prostitute.

It seems to be a leap of logic to say that because there were male temple prostitutes, that all male prostitutes are pimped from a temple.

Or that all female whores were restricted to working from the temple.

My take on the passage is that fathers were pimping out their kids for monetary gain, which monetary gain was prohibited from being brought to the Temple, by the fathers as an offering to God.

Everything that I’ve seen about pagan temple prostitution involved a gift to said pagan temple which allowed one to “worship” with an alcolyte.

The father being remunerated for his children’s services (rather than the pagan temple) tells me that this passage is not speaking of pagan temple prostitution, but the more mundane garden variety of ordinary prostitution.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

I did some looking into the sodomite word and no doubt there is something to what you’re saying about the probability/ possibility that he could be a temple prostitute.

But . . . To put it more succinctly, all temple prostitutes are whores, but not all whores are temple prostitutes.

To conflate the two by assuming that every mention of whoredom or prostitution must be related to a pagan temple, is to ignore or overlook the very basic human drive for survival or pleasure or greed.

 

[Verifyveritas76]

For example, Genesis 38:21 uses the same word as Deuteronomy 23 for harlot / whore respectively, and there is no association with a pagan temple that I can find. Merely a woman who is exchanging sex for a goat.