Biblical Support For Soliciting Prostitutes

[Wrangler]

Jesus is silent on the matter. The prohibition is adultery, having sex with a married person, which is different from the evolution condemning "extra marital sex." Let's examine 3 verses:

1. Genesis 38:11-30. Judah having with Tamar, his daughter-in-law, dressed as a prostitute
2. Judges 16:1 Samson has sex in Gaza with a prostitute.
3. Proverbs 6:26 (NOG) A prostitute’s price is only a loaf of bread, but a married woman hunts for your life itself.

NOTE: What these 3 verses have in common is there is no moral condemnation against prostitution. (Some translations of Proverbs uses the term "whore" rather than prostitute.) The point of the chapter is cautioning against adultery and suggesting it is far cheaper to get sexual satisfaction by a whore or prostitute.

According to the NSRV study notes on the Commandment prohibiting coveting your neighbor's wife was considered a property crime, as the offspring in marriage was presumed to be from the husband and adultery violates this social contract.

And let's not forget Biblical wives Sara (The wife of Abraham), Leah and Rachel (wives of Jacob) had their servants have sex with their husbands. Yes, it was not for sexual satisfaction but procreation. Still the point is no Biblical condemnation for "extra marital sex." This article explains Dinah may not have been raped but "debased" by Shechem, and her brothers were enraged that her bride price would drop. And it explains why he wanted to marry her, overcome with passion not guilt over a sex crime. Let's examine passages in the NT:

• 1 COR 7. Allows marriage to prevent vague "sexual immorality." v 6, Paul admits his words are not God’s command.
• Other verses also speak vaguely about "sexual immorality" that some translations impose church doctrine prohibiting "fornication," which is not the same thing. (Acts 15:20; 1 Corinthians 5:1; 6:13, 18; 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; Galatians 5:19; Ephesians 5:3; Colossians 3:5; 1 Thessalonians 4:3; Jude 7) Speaking of property crimes, "sexual immorality" must include rape and under age sex, which again is not the same thing as fornication.

IF "sexual immorality" includes consensual sex of unmarried adults, which fornication is, how do you reconcile that with the 3 verses originally cited?
IF you claim the NT set a higher standard, then that is the equivalent of yet another new law but Christ did not give us this higher standard. The only new law Jesus gave is in John 13, about love as he loved. Therefore, claiming the NT set a higher standard on this topic is eisegesis. We may conclude sex in marriage is preferred, as Paul wrote in 1 Cor 7, but not commanded by God. Thoughts?

 

[TitusTwoWife]

What about these verses?

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

King James Version
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

 

[Jericho]

God never condemned polygamy either, though I don't believe that was ever His intent. The Bible doesn't specifically condemn a lot of things, like recreational drugs. That doesn't mean it's okay for us to do them. To believe otherwise would seem to be an argument from silence. The Bible often told the narrative of what happened without commenting on the morality or ethics of it. That's not a tacit endorsement of something just because it doesn't explicitly condemn it.

I think God defined the boundaries of sex when He said, "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24), which Jesus later reiterated. Sex was meant to be within the confines of marriage. Anything outside of that would fall into the sexual immorality category.

 

[Nathaniel]

The same guy pushing the "kill your neighbor" thread, would now like for us to engage with prostitutes. Is he planning another thread where he suggests that we do both? It would seem to be the next step, and by his reasoning, completely justified.

 

[Debp]

What about these verses?

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

King James Version
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

I agree with you @TitusTwoWife - we should seek to be holy as the Lord is holy. Holy in our spirit (inward parts).

13Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
Romans 13:13-14

 

[Angelina]

@Wrangler, I think there are some legitimate questions here about the meaning of porneia and the way sexual sin is described in Scripture, but I don't believe that your conclusion follows the passages presented.

The problem is that adultery and sexual immorality are not treated as the same thing in the New Testament.

Jesus himself distinguishes them: “For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery...” Mark 7:21

If sexual immorality simply meant adultery, there would be little reason for Jesus to list them separately.

1 Corinthians 6 is even more difficult for the argument. Paul discusses a man having sexual relations with a prostitute:

“Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? 1 Corinthians 6:16

No husband or wife is involved, so adultery is not the issue.

Yet Paul immediately says: “Flee from sexual immorality.” 1 Corinthians 6:18

Paul then bases his argument on Genesis 2:24 and the principle of becoming “one flesh.” So the biblical framework is broader than simply protecting another man's wife.

I also don't think Genesis 38, Judges 16:1, or Proverbs 6 establishes that prostitution was therefore morally approved. Scripture often records what people did without presenting their actions as examples to follow. In Genesis 38, Judah himself acknowledges his own wrongdoing when he says of Tamar, “She is more righteous than I” Genesis 38:26. Proverbs 6:26 is a comparison of consequences; it doesn't say prostitution is morally permissible.

The argument that Paul was offering his personal opinion in 1 Corinthians 7 also needs qualification. When Paul says, “I, not the Lord,” he is distinguishing between something Jesus had directly addressed during his earthly ministry and a matter on which Jesus had not given a recorded teaching. He isn't saying that the instruction that follows has no authority.

Finally, I wouldn't describe the New Testament sexual ethic as Jesus introducing an entirely new law. When Jesus speaks about marriage, he goes back to creation:

“Haven’t you read... that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?” Matthew 19:4–5

Paul likewise goes back to Genesis when discussing sexual union in 1 Corinthians 6.

So I think the real question is not just, “Where does the Bible say unmarried sex is forbidden?” The more fundamental question is:

What does Scripture mean by sexual immorality, and what sexual relationship did God establish in creation?

It is difficult then, based on the New Testament, to reduce sexual immorality to adultery alone.

 

[Lambano]

NOTE: What these 3 verses have in common is there is no moral condemnation against prostitution.

The Greek word used (always with condemnation) in the New Testament is porneia, which in classical Greek literature refers exclusively to prostitution. Christian tradition has expanded the scope of porneia to include other forms of sexual immorality (or to be cynical, other expressions of sexuality that the interpreter disapproves of), and it is rendered so in many of the newer translations such as the NIV.

 

[Wrangler]

It is difficult then, based on the New Testament, to reduce sexual immorality to adultery alone.

Strawman. The argument is not for adultery but condoning prostitution ... It is difficult then, based on the New Testament, to reduce sexual immorality to fornication.

 

[Wrangler]

The same guy pushing the "kill your neighbor" thread, would now like for us to engage with prostitutes. Is he planning another thread where he suggests that we do both? It would seem to be the next step, and by his reasoning, completely justified.

How cute, he goes right to Ad Homenim.

In that other thread @Armour of God frames the position as loving your neighbor enough to protect them from invading hordes of murderers, rapists, and enslavers.

To claim this is beneath the Christian ethic is to deny the nature of the warrior God who trains our hands for war.

 

[Wrangler]

@TitusTwoWife, @Jericho; neither of you are answering the OP question.

The prohibition is adultery, having sex with a married person, which is different from the evolution condemning "extra marital sex." Let's examine 3 verses:

1. Genesis 38:11-30. Judah having with Tamar, his daughter-in-law, dressed as a prostitute
2. Judges 16:1 Samson has sex in Gaza with a prostitute.
3. Proverbs 6:26 (NOG) A prostitute’s price is only a loaf of bread, but a married woman hunts for your life itself.

IF "sexual immorality" includes consensual sex of unmarried adults, which fornication is, how do you reconcile that with the 3 verses originally cited?

What about these verses?

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

Sex was meant to be within the confines of marriage. Anything outside of that would fall into the sexual immorality category.

All you're doing is restating the evolution of the prohibition against "extra marital sex" not found in Scripture. Again, Paul admits his words regarding "sexual immorality" is NOT from God.

1 COR 7. Allows marriage to prevent vague "sexual immorality." v 6, Paul admits his words are not God’s command.

 

[Wrangler]

@Jericho, there is so much wrong with your post, I'm going to take the time to dissect your points one at a time. Your main problem is that you use words in your argument that you don't understand.

God never condemned polygamy either, though I don't believe that was ever His intent.

You can't have it both ways. Either action is prohibited or it is not.

Sure, one can say the ideal is X but that is not the same thing as saying non-X is prohibited.

The Bible doesn't specifically condemn a lot of things, like recreational drugs. That doesn't mean it's okay for us to do them.

Agreed.

To believe otherwise would seem to be an argument from silence.

Here is an example of using words you don't understand. Jesus was silent. The Bible is not as evidenced by the 3 verses cited.

Moreover, Jesus did not condemn a women who committed adultery. It follows that he would not condemn one doing less the egregious fornicating. Jesus often compares more to less, e.g, us giving to our children compared to how much more would our heavenly father give. (So, don't divert with the claim that all sin is equal since the claim that having sex out of wedlock is a sin would make your claim Circular).

The Bible often told the narrative of what happened without commenting on the morality or ethics of it.

Yet, in this case, the Bible does comment on the morality and ethics of it. Proverbs 8:26 explicitly identifies going to a prostitute as the morally superior choice.

That's not a tacit endorsement of something just because it doesn't explicitly condemn it.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what it means! Here is an another example of using words you don't understand. Look up the meaning of tacit, it means implicitly endorsing that which is not explicitly condemned.

I think God defined the boundaries of sex when He said, "A man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Gen 2:24), which Jesus later reiterated.

Paul knew that is not what God commanded, 1 COR 7. IF what you think is true, you are still not addressing the OP question of reconciling the verses. The conditions one leaves their parents is NOT in fornicating with a prostitute and never was.

Sex was meant to be within the confines of marriage. Anything outside of that would fall into the sexual immorality category.

Again, you are just re-stating the evolution of the prohibition against "extra marital sex." Adam and Eve weren't married.

 

[Wrangler]

Christian tradition has expanded the scope of porneia

Agreed. Didn't I make that point in the OP?

The prohibition is adultery, having sex with a married person, which is different from the evolution condemning "extra marital sex."

 

[Wrangler]

Yet Paul immediately says: “Flee from sexual immorality.” 1 Corinthians 6:18

Again, Paul also admits what he writes is NOT a commandment from God. 1 COR 7:6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this.[a] 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.

 

[Wrangler]

I agree with you @TitusTwoWife - we should seek to be holy

Agreed. However, what is preferred is not the question of the OP. If it is not prohibited by law, then it is condoned EVEN IF not preferred, EVEN IF we should do something else.

I spoke last night with the leader of a local men's group. We're meeting for the first time for dinner. Just the two of us. He said he was going to have a couple of drinks with dinner and was concerned as other members of the group hold that we SHOULD not drink. Again, SHOULD NOT is not the same as SHALL NOT.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The same guy pushing the "kill your neighbor" thread, would now like for us to engage with prostitutes. Is he planning another thread where he suggests that we do both? It would seem to be the next step, and by his reasoning, completely justified.

sadly, that is what our world is comming to.

we defend a woman who killed her three kids as justified. we defend illegals who murder our children as ok. we call evil good and good evil.. it is definately the last days

 

[Wrangler]

The Greek word used (always with condemnation) in the New Testament is porneia, which in classical Greek literature refers exclusively to prostitution. Christian tradition has expanded the scope of porneia to include other forms of sexual immorality

Although the OP addresses how the Bible condones prostitution, I think most adults have or had a sexual friend, aka boyfriend or girlfriend. This implies commitment, even if less than marriage. And I think it's even more difficult to make the argument that having a boyfriend or girlfriend falls under the scope of "sexual immorality."

I think those who support limiting sex to marriage, would benefit from admitting it's eisegeis, "sexual immorality" a vague term and that an expansion of terms due to church tradition has taken place. Given that soliciting a prostitute is condoned in Scripture, it's even more tenuous to claim that having a boyfriend or girlfriend is sexually immoral.

 

[amigo de christo]

What about these verses?

1 Corinthians 6:15-17

King James Version
15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit.

because GOD never did support it . wrangler has no idea .
Notice that they were gonna stone tarmarah .
But when she brought the evidence of who she had played the harlot with
Suddenly that man stopped it
and said SHE is MORE righteous than I for i had withheld my son from her.
The fact was it was wrong for man to lie with harlot .
Read the law . Wrangler twisting things , sadly as ususal . Now why
would a man do such a t hing .
Someone loves sin sister . And no i aint being a hater , judgmental or etc when i say that .
People love f o l lowing a god that pleases their flesh . and that IS a problem .
Cause GOD never seeks to please the flesh of man .

 

[Marvelloustime]

because GOD never did support it . wrangler has no idea .
Notice that they were gonna stone tarmarah .
But when she brought the evidence of who she had played the harlot with
Suddenly that man stopped it
and said SHE is MORE righteous than I for i had withheld my son from her.
The fact was it was wrong for man to lie with harlot .
Read the law . Wrangler twisting things , sadly as ususal . Now why
would a man do such a t hing .
Someone loves sin sister . And no i aint being a hater , judgmental or etc when i say that .
People love f o l lowing a god that pleases their flesh . and that IS a problem .
Cause GOD never seeks to please the flesh of man .

@amigo de christo

 

[Jericho]

Your main problem is that you use words in your argument that you don't understand.

If you say so. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the English language.

Moreover, Jesus did not condemn a women who committed adultery.

That wasn't Jesus' job. He's our intercessor, not our judge; that's God's role. But in telling the woman to sin no more, it was a repudiation of adultery.

Yet, in this case, the Bible does comment on the morality and ethics of it.

Yet, it doesn't do that in every case; it simply tells what happened (like the passages you cited). If, for example, I wrote a book about the Nazis but didn't comment on the morality or ethics of it, that shouldn't be inferred that I support Nazism. I would simply be giving an historical account of what happened.

Adam and Eve weren't married.

Genesis 3 calls Eve Adam's wife and he her husband.

So, where do you stand on this? Do you actually believe prostitution is okay for Christians, or is this a theological exercise?

 

[Angelina]

@Wrangler, your argument is that Scripture does not morally condemn prostitution or consensual sex with a prostitute, rather than simply arguing that adultery is the only sexual sin.

1 Corinthians 6:15–18, appears to be the clearest New Testament passage addressing the question directly.

“Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body?” 1 Corinthians 6:16
Paul then says, "Flee from sexual immorality.” 1 Corinthians 6:18

There is no adultery involved in Paul's example. The woman is a prostitute, and Paul nevertheless identifies the sexual union as "sexual immorality."

It seems difficult to reconcile with the conclusion that Scripture does not condemn sex with a prostitute.

I also don't think Genesis 38, Judges 16:1, or Proverbs 6 can establish moral approval simply from the absence of an explicit condemnation in the narrative. Scripture records many actions without approving them. In Genesis 38, Judah himself acknowledges Tamar as more righteous than he was Genesis 38:26.

So I think the more precise question is whether Scripture considers sexual union with a prostitute to be morally permissible.

On that particular question, 1 Corinthians 6:15–18 seems quite direct.