Prostitution vs adultery

[Mark C]

In addition to be revolting, and just plain obtuse when it comes to not being able to "rightly divide the Word," and even begin to see His "Bigger Picture," it occurred to me when I saw this demand what really rankles me about your attitude, Zec:

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

You'd make a REALLY crappy engineer.

"Show me what details are necessary to design a bridge."

We called such people "plug and chug." Show me the equations, tell me how to do it.

No insight. No initiative. No concept of innovation, or even of an ability to "connect-the-dots."

That's it, in a nutshell. You can't connect the dots, and demand someone do it for you. Then you berate their conclusion.

It's why you can't understand "Covenant," whether for marriage, or His people. And why you refuse to see that the answer is right in the story you belittle and ignore.


PS> I don't expect an answer, or for you to behave like an adult. I just thought folks might find the observation helpful for sorting through some of the crap...

 

[frederick]

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.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is called theft. Taking something which you have no right to take and then using it doesn't change the fact you had no right to it in the first place. It doesn't become yours simply by unlawful use. Boaz first had to establish his right to Ruth, then she became his, and it's only then he had the right to make babies with Ruth.

 

[FollowingHim]

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.

I never said the flesh cannot have deep spiritual implications. The whole reason we are having this discussion is because understanding "one flesh" does have deep spiritual implications. If there were no spiritual implications it wouldn't matter at all that you became "one flesh" with whoever - if God didn't care we could go and sleep with all the prostitutes we liked, fleshly implications be damned however real they may be. It is the very fact that He says not to - the spiritual implication of it - which is why we are having the discussion in the first place.

This is not a matter we are in disagreement about.

You're off on a tangent again instead of addressing what we're actually saying - just like how above you skipped all the list of things @Man_in_the_Middle said in his post, argued about one almost irrelevant tangent instead (the definition of "ownership"), and then when he complained that you'd skipped all the details in his post - that list of numbered points he had presented in detail for you - you pretended he hadn't even given any detail and asked for him to say it again. This is ridiculously pointless.

 

[FollowingHim]

If you do feel like getting back on topic Zec, tell us whether or not you fully agree with this post of mine, and if you do not fully agree, let us know specifically what details you agree and disagree with.

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.

 

[The Revolting Man]

You're off on a tangent again instead of addressing what we're actually saying - just like how above you skipped all the list of things @Man_in_the_Middle said in his post, argued about one almost irrelevant tangent instead (the definition of "ownership"), and then when he complained that you'd skipped all the details in his post - that list of numbered points he had presented in detail for you - you pretended he hadn't even given any detail and asked for him to say it again. This is ridiculously pointless.

All of the points in that post fall apart of ownership isn’t what he claims it is. Everything he said there was predicated on husbands owning their wives and having to acquire clear title from the woman’s father.

That is patently untrue and not supported by scripture. As soon as I pointed that out the rest of his post had been dealt with.

 

[The Revolting Man]

If you do feel like getting back on topic Zec, tell us whether or not you fully agree with this post of mine, and if you do not fully agree, let us know specifically what details you agree and disagree with.

I hate getting bogged down in these distractions. We have clear texts we could be dealing with but instead everyone wants to go pick through the chicken guts looking for signs.

The story of Ruth is not a recounting of the right way to form a marriage, it is not even a recounting of the right way to form a Levirate marriage. We’re told how to form such a marriage and, clearly, in scripture. It involves a man’s brother, who dwells in the same house as him who takes his brother’s widow to raise up an heir for his dead brother.

It has nothing to do with land rights. The land belonged to Naomi anyway. There was no dispute around the land rights. Anyone had the right to marry Ruth, she was an eligible widow and her former husband had no surviving brothers who grew up in his house. This was not a Levirate marriage situation.

This is not a passage about marriage or how to form one. It is a passage about the lineage of Jesus and a (true) parable about His saving grace.

Do you see why I try not to follow you men down some of these rabbit trails? You men are looking for escape hatches from the scriptures that are actually about the topic.

You all have accused me of wanting to win so badly that I will add to scripture. I do want to win this debate. I think I’ve been shown a truth on a foundational doctrine. I am not adding to scripture at all. Rather you all are subtracting from scripture.

You are canceling out the clear, direct verses to try and shoehorn in passages that only deal with the topic tangentially or in passing.

In the story of Ruth and Boaz, just like with Issac and Rebecca, we are given a history that contains a marriage. We are not given an indication what elements of those marriages were necessary and which were not. We’re not even told if God approved the method that those marriages were conducted by. That wasn’t the point of the stories (histories).

So no; I don’t want to get distracted by endless wranglings about Ruth and Boaz. It’s not relevant. At best it’s descriptive and not prescriptive. I want to know what God designated as the “Thou shalts” and the “Thou shalt nots”.

I want to be obedient first and everything else second.

 

[steve]

As an aside, I do believe that if Boaz would have taken Ruth when she offered herself, no one would have called foul.
She wasn’t an Israelite other than by marriage. Her nearer kin hadn’t bothered to step up.
It was Boaz putting the issue on the table that forced a decision.

Boaz could have not taken the higher road and become one flesh with her that night, but he didn’t.

 

[steve]

This was not a Levirate marriage situation.

Baloney, the fact that he had to give her closer kin the first right of refusal is plain as day.

 

[The Revolting Man]

I wish I hadn’t of read that closer.

First they determined that Ruth could be exclusively Boaz's woman and nobody else had a claim on her.

She was a widow. Boaz acknowledged in the text that she could have gone after a younger man.

That was done via the threshing floor discussion

The drunken, late night tryst?

it was all essential under the cultural circumstances

So it’s all cultural circumstances? In my culture you need a marriage certificate so we should all do that then?

Establishing if she is your woman can be as simple as a private conversation if she's clearly available and her own

So make sure she’s not married and then you can take her? This sounds suspiciously like my stance. Are you converting ?

do what is needed to ensure she is yours

That’s the entire question Samuel, what is needed to ensure she is yours? Why did you want me to respond to this? You agree with me but I’m wrong anyway? What was the point of this post?

 

[The Revolting Man]

Baloney, the fact that he had to give her closer kin the first right of refusal is plain as day.

I’m sorry Steve but the situation doesn’t conform to the command given us around Levirate marriage. And I don’t see where there’s anywhere in the story that identifies it as a Levirate marriage.

I know in the genealogies Boaz gets listed as the ancestor of David and Christ and not Naomi’s son. So I’m not seeing a Levirate in this thing. I think this is more of a situation as those daughters who couldn’t inherit their father’s land because they were killed.

 

[Man_in_the_Middle]

I wish I hadn’t of read that closer.

It appears that you don't read any of our posts that closely. This is not an insult, it is an observation. And it is because of this issue, that people find it infuriating to try and have a logical discussion with you. You go off without reading or contemplating their thoughts and ideas.

I found a thread on here that is almost exactly like this thread. It was interesting because apparently you had recently been banned from the site. (news to me, it happened before I joined) What was very notable was how pleasant and polite you were. 6 months later you came back to that thread with the fullness of your vitriol. And somehow in the interim became a moderator as well? One small step for you, one giant leap backwards for bibfam!

 

[steve]

I’m sorry Steve but the situation doesn’t conform to the command given us around Levirate marriage. And I don’t see where there’s anywhere in the story that identifies it as a Levirate marriage.

I know in the genealogies Boaz gets listed as the ancestor of David and Christ and not Naomi’s son. So I’m not seeing a Levirate in this thing. I think this is more of a situation as those daughters who couldn’t inherit their father’s land because they were killed.

What part of 12And now it is true that I am thy near kinsman: howbeit there is a kinsman nearer than I. do you refuse to understand?
You have madup a rule based upon what the Bible doesn’t say. I thought that was the pope’s job.
Interestingly enough, the principal is addressed by Naomi also when she identifies Boaz as “….our near kinsman”. Not proof positive, but a supporting indication.

The drunken, late night tryst?

You are reading this in also, it doesn’t say that. He ate and drank and his heart was merry. Period. The traditional explanation was that he slept on the grain in order to guard it, letting his men go home to their families.
If he had been inebriated, he probably wouldn’t have had the mental clarity to turn down her offer.

As everyone else points out, you make up stuff and try to force everyone else to believe it.

 

[steve]

know in the genealogies Boaz gets listed as the ancestor of David and Christ and not Naomi’s son. So I’m not seeing a Levirate in this thing.

I can’t explain why Yah chose to put it that way, but you don’t get to make up the rules about Levirate laws based on this.
It could be an indication if there were 2 or 3 other witnesses in Scripture, but until then it is an outlier.

 

[Mark C]

You all have accused me of wanting to win so badly that I will add to scripture. I do want to win this debate. I think I’ve been shown a truth on a foundational doctrine. I am not adding to scripture at all. Rather you all are subtracting from scripture. [sic]

Says the guy who ignores - or worse, outright DENIES - the clearest precedent, and most complete example, in Scripture!!!

You are canceling out the clear, direct verses to try and shoehorn in passages that only deal with the topic tangentially or in passing.

...just like with Issac and Rebecca, we are given a history that contains a marriage.

This is why I said you refuse to even SEE, much less connect, obvious 'dots'. They don't fit your dogma, they don't exist. (And, you have been known to just delete them.)

We are not given an indication what elements of those marriages were necessary and which were not.

Give the STUNNING depth of detail, it's hard to believe you could even write that without being hit by some kind of lightning. Have you ever heard of 'context.'

OBVIOUS example: The fact that Abraham COULD have (except for his age and perhaps other committments) have done the job himself, could there be another reason the Author included the agency aspect of the story? Like a "good and faithful servant," who "came in His Master's Name," to do a specific, vital task for Him, that serves as a "shadow picture" of OTHER vital elements that that very same Lineage will come to produce?

Good Grief!!!!

And there is STILL no better single exposition of what it takes to consummate a "marriage contract," which had just been laid out in detail, than Genesis 24:67!

We’re not even told if God approved the method that those marriages were conducted by. That wasn’t the point of the stories (histories).

What, does He have to provide a virgin willing to carry 1100 lbs of water for YOU to make His point? Or can you read for comprehension?

How can you make such a blitheringly ignorant faithless claim? An atheist would just deny she would have done that, because He doesn't exist.

So no; I don’t want to get distracted by endless wranglings about Ruth and Boaz. It’s not relevant. At best it’s descriptive and not prescriptive. I want to know what God designated as the “Thou shalts” and the “Thou shalt nots”.

No you don't. You've made that very clear.

I want to be obedient first and everything else second.

If you were obedient you wouldn't censor every honest attempt at discussion of His Instruction.

 

[steve]

She was a widow. Boaz acknowledged in the text that she could have gone after a younger man.

It is possible that the closer relative was a younger man, but I would agree that it is more probable that it indicates that she wasn’t considered to be held to the strict Levirate law.

 

[Mark C]

I can’t explain why Yah chose to put it that way, but you don’t get to make up the rules about Levirate laws based on this.
It could be an indication if there were 2 or 3 other witnesses in Scripture, but until then it is an outlier.

Yeah - why did He waste all that ink to make the ridiculous point that a Kinsman-Redeemer might not look EXACTLY like what some might expect?


PS> And then put the story in the line of King David and the Messiah besides, and from a Moabite no less? Albeit ten generations out...

 

[MemeFan]

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is called theft. Taking something which you have no right to take and then using it doesn't change the fact you had no right to it in the first place. It doesn't become yours simply by unlawful use. Boaz first had to establish his right to Ruth, then she became his, and it's only then he had the right to make babies with Ruth.

You have drinken too much @FollowingHim cool-aid.

Whole concept of "assigned" makes sense, it doesn't generalize that man must first check assignability.

Ruth and Boaz are special case where someone else has advantage. It doesn't mean this checking must/can be generalized.

I'm certain Hebrew women were marked as taken with some clothing or whatever functioned as ring now. So any man would within 30 seconds know is woman taken or not.

There is no need for "process" to check assignability. It was too obvious.

 

[frederick]

There is no need for "process" to check assignability. It was too obvious

Obvious or not, no man has the right to have sexual intercourse with a woman who is not his!

 

[steve]

I'm certain Hebrew women were marked as taken with some clothing or whatever functioned as ring now

Really?
Based on?

 

[MemeFan]

Really?
Based on?

Read someone virgin has special cloth.

Also, because visibly marking taken women stops 99% men from trying to seduce married women which would be important in Hebrew culture.