One of the difficulties of sporadic, staccato-type statements in the Bible is determining whether or not any of them have any connection with each other. The parables do sometimes, but what about the others?
Like this one in Deuteronomy 23:17-18, for instance?
If you divide these verses in halves, three of the four “halves” have to do with sexual immorality of the paid variety. Deuteronomy 23:17 forbids anyone being a cult prostitute (male or female), while the first half of verse 18 forbids bringing the wages of a harlot into the temple coffers.
Note: Although harlotry is forbidden in passages like Leviticus 19:29, this passage is strictly about bringing the wages from prostitution as your sacral offering. This is about more than just “dirty money”—as evidenced by Genesis 38:17, sometimes animals were given in exchange for prostitution services. This passage forbids using those animals in sacrifices.
But what about that second statement in Deuteronomy 23:18? The one about bringing the “wages of a dog” into the house of the Lord? What in the world is that talking about?
As is said, there are two schools of thought. The first has to do with using “dog” as an epithet for harlots themselves, but that would be somewhat redundant since the wages of a harlot are specifically mentioned in the first phrase of that verse. Some scholars get around that though by saying “dogs” applies specifically to male prostitutes.
Another possibility lies in simply saying that the “wages of a dog” are simply that—wages given for the sale or services of semi-domesticated canines.
While we may know them as man’s best friend (except mine, which is an evil beast), dogs were used as herding animals by ancient civilizations. However, they were also known as scavengers, which meant Israelites regularly encountered them in the wilderness.
For that reason, it’s thought that the proceeds from their sale were considered unclean. By the criteria of Leviticus 11 (split hooves, chews the cud) and the definition of scavenger birds (also in Leviticus 11), they were not highly thought of. Selling them resulted in “dirty money,” in a similar way that the wages of a harlot were.
Moreover, there’s quite a bit of archeological evidence that suggests dogs were used in pagan festivals. If so, that tracks with their complete exclusion from all Temple activities.
What do you think, though? What do you think Moses means here by “the wages of a dog”?