There is no law against Hosea marrying a Harlot. Sorry, but there isn't. Thus, marrying her isn't a violation of any law anywhere.
TMM:
"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a Sodomite of the sons of Israel." ~ (Deuteronomy 23:17)
Period.
Just because there is an extension of details to this law does not change the fact of this one sentence of the Law. If Gomer was a prostitute (before marriage) then she would have violated this law just by being a whore of the daughter of Israel. God would not change His mind on this fact concerning this Law and then approve that it was okay for the daughters of Israel to be whores by condoning Hosea to marry one. Marriage to a person does not wipe that person's record away of being a prostitute anymore than it would automatically change the heart of the prostitute who is being unfaithful to begin with.
themuzicman said:
It might be considered foolish to marry a woman known to sleep around, but the marriage itself isn't sinful. Hosea doesn't even sin when his wife sleeps around on him. She does, but he doesn't.
Hosea chooses to put his wife away (See reply below on what Jesus view on Marriage and Divorce was). Anyways, we know Hosea puts away his wife when he says...
"Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhama, Plead with your mother, plead; for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband..." (Hosea 2:1-3).
Jason0047 said:
For the book of Romans tells us the Law of Marriage
(Which did not change since the creation of the Law of Moses)…
"For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man." ~ (Romans 7:2-3)
In other words, to God: sex was supposed to be considered the symbol of union of one man and one woman in marriage.
themuzicman said:
Which is fine. Hosea has a reasonable expectation (even if foolish) that she would do so.
Of which we have no basis for proof within the Scriptures that Gomer ever decided to marry Hosea being a prostitute. Your assumption is based upon some twisting on one word within Scripture. There is no other Scripture verses to support this viewpoint, and it is certainly not supported by the Law of the Scriptures (Under the Old Covenant) (See reply below on sexual purity and marriage).
Jason0047 said:
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." ~ (Genesis 2:24)
It does not say two or more fleshes in these verses. For that is exactly what Hosea would be doing if he married a prostitute. He would be taking on the joining of other men.
themuzicman said:
Only if she married them.
No, God considers sex to be only within the bounds of marriage only as a symbol of two people becoming one flesh. This would desecrate what God had originally set out for what marriage is supposed to be like when He first created it in the Garden of Eden (See reply below concerning Paul's viewpoint on this topic).
Dude, read your own image, specifically in the brackets after idolatry. This is a symbolic use of the word which points directly back to being a harlot: To go WHORING after other gods. The base word refers to sexual infidelity, and only in the way that idolatry is imaged to sexual infidelity does it refer to idolatry. Even just before "idolatry" it says FIGURATIVELY.
No, the brackets are not a way of ignoring the alternate definition. You are twisting the lexicon to suit your purposes. The word does not say it cannot also mean idolatry. It says, I quote:
"
It is very often used figuratively, ---(a) of idolatry (of a whoring after strange gods). Lexicon - for the word "zanah" (i.e. whoredoms).
Also, the fact that you did not know that "whoredoms" was not defined in the lexicon as idolatry proves you were unaware that the word CAN mean this in it's usage. You are trying to save face. Besides, the verse makes more sense if you read it metaphorically. For if you believe God told Hosea to marry a prostitute then you must also believe God told Hosea to marry or adopt children who were prostitutes, too.
"...Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms..." ~ (Hosea 1:2)
So if you read the first word "whoredoms" as being in reference to prostitution then you must also read the second word "whoredoms" as in reference to prostitution, too.
Therefore the word "whoredoms" is in reference of "a people who are idolatrous". Not about someone actually being a sexual prostitute.
Sorry, but this isn't the law. The law allows women who were previously sexually active to marry. Now, if a husband found this out and was unpleased, he had the option to send her home to her father, but this was not a requirement.
No. This was not some kind of license for a woman to be sexually active before marriage. For it was still considered a transgression, but it was left up to the man decide on what to do with her. For the man was not at fault for marrying the woman because he did not KNOW until later. He was innocent of her crimes and was given a choice to keep the marriage that had already transpired.
Sexual purity was still the standard of Biblical marriage. If it wasn't then she wouldn't have been forced to hide her transgressions.
Sexual purity is the whole point of Deuteronomy 22:13-29 for the standard of marrying someone and remaining in marriage. If there was a clause in marriage for a non-virgin to marry, surely this woman (who was a non-virgin) in Deuteronomy Chapter 22 would have sought out a legal means to marry the person she wanted to then.
Men and women were never meant to divorce or to be sexually impure as if it was God's ideal model for marriage. For Jesus agreed with the Biblical model of marriage back in Genesis that was supposed to be a Holy union between one man and one woman that was never meant to be put asunder or broken.
For Jesus said...
"Have you not read, that he who made them at the beginning made them male and female. And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they two shall be one flesh? Therefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." ~ (Matthew 19:4-6)
"He said unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts allowed you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so." ~ (Matthew 19:8)
In fact, Paul really sinks the clincher in 1st Corinthians, when he also quotes that defining passage in Genesis 2:24:
"What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh." ~ (1 Corinthians 6:16)
Is a non-virgin joined, or is Paul a liar?
Actually, Ezekiel objected on ritual cleanliness grounds. It was a sin for him.
God here is not commanding Ezekiel to sin. He is testing him just like he tested Abraham in sacrificing his only son. For God knew that Ezekiel would disagree with him on these grounds and thereby tell him to use cow dung as fuel for the fire in cooking his bread instead. For it was human waste that was to be buried outside the camp and not animal manure (Dueteronomy 23:12-13).
God's mentioning of eating defiled bread (in Ezekiel 4:13) is a foreshadowing of the New Covenant where today we did not have to adhere to the cultural law of Israel any more; That we could eat whatever we wanted as long as we gave thanks to God. That we could eat defiled leavened bread whenever we wanted to and it would be okay (because we are under the Law of Grace and not under the Law of Moses (or the Old Covenant).
Excellent. In the same way, in marrying a harlot Hosea is symbolizing Israel's whoring with other gods, and symbolizing the exile to come, where Israel is sent away, and then symbolizing the return from exile as Hosea gets his wife back.
No, because Israel does not start off as whoring after other gods. Oh, and Hosea does not re-marry Gomer. Hosea becomes her "care taker" but he never takes her back to be his wife. There is no verse that says they ever remarry (after Hosea's claim that she is not his wife anymore (Hosea 2:1-3). When Gomer first becomes unfaithful in marriage, this is a symbol of Israel whoring after other gods. Gomer falls into such sexual fornication that she becomes a slave. This is the exile. So when Hosea buys her out of slavery to be her "care taker" (and not as a wife), this is the symbolization of Israel's return from exile.
Umm.. "Later"? Try within six months. They get out, God gives them water and food in the desert. They fight Amalek. They come to Sinai, Moses goes up the mountain to get the 10 commandments, and Israel is making a golden calf while he's gone. They were happy to be out of slavery, and thought it was pretty cool what Yahweh did. As soon as Moses disappears for a few days, Israel is worshiping other gods.
Well, for one, I knew about Israel's unfaithfulness after they were delivered. Second, the word "Later" can be in reference to mean months later. However, you ignored the whole point I was trying to make, though. Israel was not unfaithful or a prostitute (with idolatry) in the beginning. For Israel was not mentioned as being unfaithful when they were under Joseph's rule. When Israel was under slavery to Egypt, many of the woman of Israel remained faithful to God despite threats to their lives. Israel was not unfaithful when God was in the process of delivering them. They obeyed the Passover and followed Moses out of Egypt.
You can't? Why not? Someone is sexually active with many people, then meets the right guy, and becomes monogamous. That's certainly not unreasonable.
Well, we are under the New Covenant. But God's ideal plan for marriage stands since the foundation of Genesis (of which Jesus makes very clear). Only threw man's hardness of heart has God allowed sexual impurity and bills of divorcements.
Dude... less than 6 months, during which they grumbled about water, food and meat. Israel was not "faithful" from the beginning.
Again, I did not claim there was a long period of time before Israel sinned. I just said "Later". The word, "Later" can mean a few months later.
For that matter, read Exodus and numbers again. When they're traveling, they're grumbling. When they're camped, they're breaking covenant. They weren't faithful at all during that first generation.
And what happened to that first generation? Did they enter the Promised Land? No. The second generation had entered the Promised Land. Even Moses was kept out of the Promised Land because He smote the rock in order to get the water. See obedience was the condition of the Covenant. Not the Promise made to Abraham (that his descendants would be an everlasting great nation that would be innumerable as the stars).
...
