In Deuteronomy (22:13-21) a man charges that his wife was not found to be a virgin on her wedding night. If this were true, she would be stoned for having “played the harlot in her father’s house.” In other words, she has engaged in sexual intercourse when she ought to have been guarding her virginity carefully in order to be a suitable bride. In the process, she has exposed her father to shame of having misrepresented her state in negotiating her marriage. It is not clear from the passage that she actually receives payment for her services; the point seems to be, rather, that she has deprived her father and her prospective husband of their rights in her. What was wrong with prostitution, from the perspective of ancient Israel, was not so much the giving or receiving of payment for sexual intercourse as it was the removal of sexual intercourse from the framework of property and hierarchy which normally contained it and ensured that it was placed at the service of the family.
Such an interpretation is made explicit in a more extensive critique of prostitution found in Proverbs. After warning the reader against the wiles of the loose woman, the author contrasts the positive ideal of possessing a wife with a negative prospect of wasting one’s resources on a courtesan (Proverbs 5:15-23).
Having said that, one cannot treat wisdom literature as if it were the same genre as legislation. It is clear that Proverbs agrees with the Torah in understanding prostitution, as violation to Gods will, not merely as something to be avoided for prudential reasons. Still, the justification offered for the prohibition is intrusive as to the ethical framework in which the prohibition itself belonged. Prostitution was wrong because it stood outside the normal patriarchal system in which the male head of the household owned one or more women as sexual partners. As such, it threatened the interests of the family. The man might feel that he had received full value for his expense, but the family gained nothing at all from his patronising of the prostitute. His action, therefore was a betrayal of his responsibilities, since he existed not to gratify his own desires but to maintain and enhance the fortunes of his “father’s house.”
What the Torah and Proverbs agree upon then is the condemnation of those who place personal gratification ahead of family duty. The Torah condemns the unmarried woman who prefers sexual pleasure above her obligations as a good daughter of the household who must preserve her marriageability, which is, indeed the family’s investment in her. Proverbs condemns the man who spends family resources on private pleasure. He should marry a woman and be content with the sexual pleasure he receives from her. Proverbs was concerned to make the prostitute sound as unscrupulous and unattractive as possible. The Torah was speaking to the woman who was trying to behave as an unattached individual in pursuit of pleasure while still remaining under the protection of her father. According to the Torah, prostitution, though a slightly less serious crime than adultery, was wrong insofar as it represented the triumph of individual gratification over against the principle of subordination to the family.
The matter of prostitution receives very little attention from the Gospel writers, but it appears in a significant pronouncement of Jesus. The tax collectors and the prostitutes, he said, were entering the Kingdom of God ahead of respectable religious leaders (chief priests and elders) because they believed the preaching of John the Baptist (Matt 21:23-32). Since John preached repentance (Matt 3:2) one may suspect that prostitutes ceased to be such when they came to believe the message. It proves difficult, however, to be certain. The tax collectors presumably did not cease to be tax collectors (In Luke 19:1-10, the tax collector Zacchaeus, upon his conversion, gave half of his property to the poor and made amends to those he has defrauded). A prostitute would have found it singularly difficult to emerge from her low place in the community. We know little about them in Jewish times. In the contemporary Gentile world, however, most of them were slaves, who could not legally abandon their status. Even free prostitutes, if poor, would have had only the most limited of options, since they would not have been acceptable as wives. Our own presuppositions, then, may perhaps dictate whether we think of these women as giving up prostitution or not. Luke 7:36-50 sees Jesus anointed by a public sinner. While she is not labelled as a prostitute, it is one conclusion that could be possibly said about her. Jesus accepts her intentions, contrasts them favourably with those of her host, the Pharisee, and finally says, “Her sins, many as they are, are forgiven because she has loved much” (7:47). This does not tell us what Jesus preferred prostitutes to do, but it does suggest that he did not make grace conditional on prostitutes escaping her place in society. The most significant thing is that Jesus held them up to the religious leadership as a model of repentance for them to follow, thus implying that the respectable are not unlike the prostitutes in respect to sin. Since Jesus held them up as a religious example, we may guess that although he took prostitution to be ethically wrong, he followed the example of Proverbs in appointing blame to the man who visited the prostitute more than to the prostitute herself.
Paul has little to say about sexual ethics in his main doctrinal statement, the Epistle to the Romans, except the forceful identification of sexual immorality with humanities alienation from God (Romans 1:24-27). However, in his letters to the other churches he is forced to address the topic because of the behaviour of certain individuals in those churches, particularly at Corinth. The Christians at Corinth produced highly divergent interpretations of what the Gospel demanded in the way of sexual ethics, ranging from libertinism to a complete rejection of both marriage and sexual intercourse. It is probable that the libertine party at Corinth had adopted slogans such as “All things are permitted” and “Food is for the belly and the belly for food” (implying that sexual intercourse is as uncomplicated an expression of natural desire as eating is). Paul argues that the body of a Christian belongs to Christ. Therefore, all sexual expression, then, must take Christ’s ownership into account.
Sex with a prostitute might seem to establish no relationship at all beyond the brief one required for the sanctification of desire. Paul claims that every sexual act between man and woman established a union of flesh, like that of marriage. In other words, the prostitute and the man, who has used her, actually belong to each other for the duration of their sexual intercourse, though not beyond. In Paul’s own terminology, the relationship thus established is “one body;” but in the terminology of Genesis, it is a relationship of “one flesh.” Paul insisted that the man who had intercourse with the prostitute was not unchanged by that act. However, it was destructive of one’s spirit; the relation to Christ and to God:
“Every sin that a person commits is outside the body, but the man who uses harlots is sinning against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 18-20)
It is evident that where Proverbs discourages a man from using prostitutes because he belonged to his family, Paul discouraged it because he belonged to God. The body, the person as a whole, is the spirit’s temple, into which other forms of worship must not be introduced. “One might well ask, then, whether the implication of this line of reasoning is not, finally, to forbid sexual intercourse altogether.”
From whichever interpretation or opinion one adopts, as a Christian, or more to the point, as human beings, it should be understood that the use of prostitutes or the actual act of prostitution is both morally and ethically wrong. It is a sin against God, in that it undervalues the gift of love, through intercourse, given to us by God, and moreover, it shows a lack of respect for the body and minds of others.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cave, S ‘The Christian Way,’ Nisbet and Company Limited, 1963
Countryman, L.W ‘Dirt, Greed and Sex,’ Fortress Press, 1988
Hays, R.B ‘The Moral Vision of the New Testament,’ Harper Collins Publishers, 1996
Manson, T.W ‘Ethics and the Gospel,’ SCM Press Limited, 1960
Countryman, L ‘Dirt, Greed and Sex’ p205
