Oppression, Omniscience, andJudgment 681 cost  her  dearly  in  terms  of  her  career,  but  this  is  the  free  market’s way: if you are not willing to pay the price demanded by the seller — in this case, the seller of the job — you have no valid complaint. After all, any attractive woman who decides not to become a prostitute thereby gives up the economic income that she might have earned. The only strictly economic difference between this woman and the woman who has been solicited by her employer is that she may not have been asked to become a prostitute by some man. But the eco- nomics of the two examples are the same: forfeited income for lack of consent.  Each  woman  pays  to  retain  her  moral  integrity,  But  the civil government should have nothing to say in either case.” So might run the arguments of an  “anarcho-capitalist   .“ The  Bible  prohibits  prostitution.  “Do  not  prostitute  thy  daughter, to cause her to be a whore; lest the land  fall  to  whoredom,  and  the land become full of wickedness” (Lev. 19:29). To profane or pollute the land morally was a sin in the Old Testament. Today, it is a direct sin against Christ, who now spews out evil (Rev. 3:16), as the land was said to do in the Old Testament (Lev. 18:25). To pressure a woman to become a prostitute is itself an act of defilement. If either the woman or the employer is married, then the demand that she submit is also a call to commit the capital crime of adultery, for which both parties could be executed if discovered and convicted in a civil court, if the woman’s husband so insists  (Lev. 20:10). While there is no civil penalty attached to the command not to afflict the weak, it is clear that the judges have the authority in this instance — sexual harassment — to penalize the offender. Oppression as such is not penalized, but this specific form of oppression is, since biblical civil law deals with it. Without the civil government’s authority to inflict a penalty, this crime of demanding the performance of a capital crime could not easily be exposed to the civil authorities by the victim. The employer would suffer no civil penalty, and the woman would probably lose her job for having complained publicly. Thus, the enforceability of the law of God would be compromised. Sin would encounter less re- straint. The enticermmt to commit a sin to which a civil penalty is attached is therefore itself a civil crime, punishable by civil law, analogous to the case of someone who secretly enticed a family member to wor- ship a god other than the God of the Bible, a crime punished by the authorities (Deut. 13:6-11). The judges might use public flogging as a first-time penalty, and execution for the second infraction.