Prostitution vs adultery

[The Revolting Man]

Go read the story again... It was a legally handled case.

Rth 4:8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
Rth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
Rth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
Rth 4:11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:


They were not joined together yet because Boaz knew that there was another man "closer" to Ruth than he was. So, it was made legal in chapter 4 before they were "joined together"/Married!

Read verse 13. The sex didn’t take place on the threshing floor, as much fun as that story is. It took place in verse 13.

13 ¶ So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife, and he went in to her. And the LORD fnenabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son.

Boas took Ruth and she became his wife. All of that stuff with the shoes was just details. Unless you think we should still be exchanging shoes and that all weddings should accompany real estate inheritances the this isn’t a norm setting event. There are no norm forming events.

 

[MemeFan]

Go read the story again... It was a legally handled case.

Rth 4:8 Therefore the kinsman said unto Boaz, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe.
Rth 4:9 And Boaz said unto the elders, and unto all the people, Ye are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech's, and all that was Chilion's and Mahlon's, of the hand of Naomi.
Rth 4:10 Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, have I purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place: ye are witnesses this day.
Rth 4:11 And all the people that were in the gate, and the elders, said, We are witnesses. The LORD make the woman that is come into thine house like Rachel and like Leah, which two did build the house of Israel: and do thou worthily in Ephratah, and be famous in Bethlehem:


They were not joined together yet because Boaz knew that there was another man "closer" to Ruth than he was. So, it was made legal in chapter 4 before they were "joined together"/Married!

That's dealing with inheritance. Where is priest and signing of marriage contract itself?

Best you can claim is that Boaz has right to marry Ruth. When did their marriage start?

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

When you buy a property, here is what happens.

1. You initiate the offer, either one of you.
2. There is some negotiations until an agreement between the owners is made.
3. Then payment is made.
4. Then possession is taken.

Your argument is that the ownership IS the possession and not all the wrangling that happens beforehand.

So, Squatters rights. Just TAKE possession and you own it! Forget all that wrangling ahead of time, that is just details.

This IS ya'lls argument. You may not like it but that is what it boils down too...

 

[FollowingHim]

Best you can claim is that Boaz has right to marry Ruth. When did their marriage start?

Boas took Ruth and she became his wife. All of that stuff with the shoes was just details.

First they determined that Ruth could be exclusively Boaz's woman and nobody else had a claim on her. That was done via the threshing floor discussion, and Boaz's negotiations with the other relative. This was not "just details", it was all essential under the cultural circumstances to ensure that Boaz had the right to take Ruth.

Then, having established she was his woman, they were able to have sex and become one flesh.


These are the same two simple yet essential steps that all of us follow also. Establishing if she is your woman can be as simple as a private conversation if she's clearly available and her own agent (Boaz could have taken Ruth after just the threshing floor discussion had there been no other relative with a claim on her), or a long bureaucratic procedure if she's going through divorce court, or full of complex ritual if she happens to be a royal princess with a father who insists on a pompous state wedding... Whatever the circumstances, do what is needed to ensure she is yours. Then you can become one flesh. Couldn't be simpler.

 

[MemeFan]

First they determined that Ruth could be exclusively Boaz's woman and nobody else had a claim on her. That was done via the threshing floor discussion, and Boaz's negotiations with the other relative. This was not "just details", it was all essential under the cultural circumstances to ensure that Boaz had the right to take Ruth.

Then, having established she was his woman, they were able to have sex and become one flesh.

No. Threshing floor is when Boaz has first rights to Ruth. He could establish first right and then give up those all without involving Ruth.

When exactly has Ruth accepted marriage?

 

[Maddog]

Well this is progress! I guess now we get to delve into all the times flesh and spirit intersect.

Yes but not in the hyper-spiritualized direction you may be thinking of.
What was the mindset of the ancient Hebrew? The deed made something. It SHALL become something. Plant seed and you will have a product- a tomato or corn or wheat (of course in the case of a garden) or the product of a woman. The earth is NOT the produce, the produce draws from the earth. What foolish farmer plants seed and doesn't expect a harvest? The woman undoudtedly is impacted by the process however the woman is NOT the product. It is actually quite earthy and simple as much of scripture is.
We however, make it complicated for various reasons whether it is in our pushback against the "physical as sinful and therefore anti-spiritual is sinful" as Augustine taught anything sexual is anti-God (thus justifying monastic beginnings: you were MORE spiritual when you abstained from sex). It was the Greco and early Roman-esque idea that ONLY one-man could unite with one woman in a forever condition. All that in contrast to those UnSungodly breeders in the Hebrew sector of society. God's idea is, "Breed and Have Babies!" Not, "breed and change your isha."
Enjoy your contractual or covenantal or theft acquisition of a woman and produce a flesh.

 

[MemeFan]

When you buy a property, here is what happens.

1. You initiate the offer, either one of you.
2. There is some negotiations until an agreement between the owners is made.
3. Then payment is made.
4. Then possession is taken.

Your argument is that the ownership IS the possession and not all the wrangling that happens beforehand.

So, Squatters rights. Just TAKE possession and you own it! Forget all that wrangling ahead of time, that is just details.

This IS ya'lls argument. You may not like it but that is what it boils down too...

I don't use contract law as metaphor for marriage.

You can't use contract law when "services exchanged" are unable to be expressed in money. Marriage is social relationship, not business one.

Best way to offend your mother is offering to pay her for cakes when she makes them as gift to you.

 

[Maddog]

No. Threshing floor is when Boaz has first rights to Ruth. He could establish first right and then give up those all without involving Ruth.

When did Ruth has accepted marriage?

Not so.
Ruth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
It had to be ESTABLISHED that Boaz could redeem her as his isha. Technicalities make a difference.

 

[MemeFan]

Not so.
Ruth 3:12 And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I.
It had to be ESTABLISHED that Boaz could redeem her as his isha. Technicalities make a difference.

You didn't answer my question.

You said that Boaz has to be established as closest willing lawful husband, but that's not Ruth's acceptance.

 

[FollowingHim]

No. Threshing floor is when Boaz has first rights to Ruth. He could establish first right and then give up those all without involving Ruth.

When did Ruth has accepted marriage?

You're overcomplicating this by adding ideas that are not present in scripture.

Boaz did not have first rights to Ruth, he states clearly that someone else had first right to her, which is why he went to town and had the whole incident with the shoes. The whole reason that occurred was because he didn't have first right. That is something you're adding.

Ruth didn't "accept marriage" because Boaz didn't "propose" it. You're trying to shoehorn Western cultural romanticism into a situation that didn't have it. Ruth offered herself to Boaz, he made sure she was free, then accepted her offer. Just stick with what is actually written.

 

[MemeFan]

You're overcomplicating this by adding ideas that are not present in scripture.

Boaz did not have first rights to Ruth, he states clearly that someone else had first right to her, which is why he went to town and had the whole incident with the shoes. The whole reason that occurred was because he didn't have first right. That is something you're adding.

Ruth didn't "accept marriage" because Boaz didn't "propose" it. You're trying to shoehorn Western cultural romanticism into a situation that didn't have it. Ruth offered herself to Boaz, he made sure she was free, then accepted her offer. Just stick with what is actually written.

And Ruth could change her mind after offering herself to Boaz.

There is no law which says "if you try to seduce potential marriage partners and her/him refuses and it's interested/become lawful partner you have to enter marriage with them".

Text we have is description what activities happened and in which order. It's upon us to figure morality and legality happening. Don't assume all such details are said.

Nowhere in Torah is written than seduction is morally acceptable to find husband. We have to conclude that from advice Ruth receives.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I don't use contract law as metaphor for marriage.

You can't use contract law when "services exchanged" are unable to be expressed in money. Marriage is social relationship, not business one.

Best way to offend your mother is offering to pay her for cakes when she makes them as gift to you.

When ownership is involved, it is not simply a social construct.

 

[MemeFan]

When ownership is involved, it is not simply a social construct.

Ownership is right to exclude. Parents can exclude other people from having contract with their children.

Yet, parentship is social relationship and children aren't for sale. Same can be with marriage.

 

[FollowingHim]

As I said @MemeFan, you are way overcomplicating a very simple situation. I won't reply further as this exchange is simply cluttering the thread, I'm trying to talk to Zec and Mark about one flesh.

 

[The Revolting Man]

When you buy a property, here is what happens.

1. You initiate the offer, either one of you.
2. There is some negotiations until an agreement between the owners is made.
3. Then payment is made.
4. Then possession is taken.

Your argument is that the ownership IS the possession and not all the wrangling that happens beforehand.

So, Squatters rights. Just TAKE possession and you own it! Forget all that wrangling ahead of time, that is just details.

This IS ya'lls argument. You may not like it but that is what it boils down too...

I reject the entire idea that men own their wives. If you own property you can dispose of it as you like and you absolutely are not allowed to dispose of wives almost at all. If you own something you can transfer title and that is explicitly forbidden .

You have a wife the same way the slave show is given a wife by his master does. She’s yours provisionally but He retains title.

 

[FollowingHim]

I reject the entire idea that men own their wives. If you own property you can dispose of it as you like and you absolutely are not allowed to dispose of wives almost at all. If you own something you can transfer title and that is explicitly forbidden .

You have a wife the same way the slave show is given a wife by his master does. She’s yours provisionally but He retains title.

I agree. It's not about "ownership" per se, it's about assignment - which woman is associated with which man. This is the sense in which I use the phrase "your woman" - not the woman you own as a slave, but the woman who is assigned to you.

It does still matter a lot. You must establish that she is "yours provisionally", ie assigned to you and not to anybody else, before sleeping with her. For one reason, adultery is by definition sleeping with a woman who is assigned to a man other than yourself (which is why sleeping with a betrothed woman is adultery). Hence the effort Boaz went to ensure that Ruth was available to be assigned to him, and was not assigned to someone else.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I reject the entire idea that men own their wives. If you own property you can dispose of it as you like and you absolutely are not allowed to dispose of wives almost at all. If you own something you can transfer title and that is explicitly forbidden .

You have a wife the same way the slave show is given a wife by his master does. She’s yours provisionally but He retains title.

The point STILL stands! Your skipping the details and leaping to the possession part just like a squatter would. It is wrong!

 

[Mark C]

Not that simple since rest of Christianity requires presence of all listed in order for marriage to be valid.

As most here know, 'rest of xtianity' is very often WRONG, particularly about marriage.

Also, this is very important act done with "handshake" agreement. Are you sure common law won't requires notary or something else on paper?

You are confusing 'recording' (as with a land deed) to contract. The latter can be a handshake, or verbal; there is no requirement that a sale, for example, be in writing. One interesting element of common law contracts is a general presumption of integrity...

 

[The Revolting Man]

The point STILL stands! Your skipping the details and leaping to the possession part just like a squatter would. It is wrong!

What details? Show me the details. Don’t show me stories where you cherry pick details that you like and ignore the ones you don’t.

Show me where God said what details are necessary for a marriage.

 

[The Revolting Man]

Alright @FollowingHim and @Maddog , this “flesh only means flesh” (same word as in one flesh) thing is unsupportable. Christ said that communion is His flesh and there were a ton of other verses where was juxtaposed with deep spiritual concepts.

I absolutely will start that thread if you insist but considering how it touches on communion and Christ’s flesh it would seem simpler for you to just admit that that flesh can have deep spiritual implications.

We were created with eternal bodies in Eden and we will have perfected bodies in Heaven so clearly flesh is connected to the spiritual realm anyway.