Definitions

Willful sexual intercourse with someone other than one’s husband or wife. Jesus expanded the meaning of adultery to include the cultivation of lust: “Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” <Matt. 5:28>.

In the Ten Commandments God emphatically prohibited adultery when He said, “You shall not commit adultery” <Ex. 20:14>. Under Mosaic Law, when a couple was caught in the act of adultery, both parties were to be killed <Deut. 22:22>.

Deut 22:22 “If a man is found lying with a woman married to a husband, then both of them shall die-- the man that lay with the woman, and the woman; so you shall put away the evil from Israel.

Adultery plays havoc with personal, domestic, and national happiness. A case in point is David’s affair with Bathsheba. Their adultery led to a cover-up, which was followed by the murder of Bathsheba’s husband <2 Samuel 11>. Nathan the prophet later came to David, accusing him of his sin and declaring that because of it, violence would become commonplace in David’s household <2 Sam. 12:10>. One disaster after another struck his family, including rape, murder, and revolt <2 Samuel 13--15>.

Adultery reached epidemic proportions in Jeremiah’s time. The prophet repeatedly spoke out against this and other sins <Jer. 7:9; 23:10>. The problem was so rampant that even the other prophets of Jerusalem were guilty of it <Jer. 23:14>, and Jeremiah predicted God’s judgment on them <Jer. 23:15>.

Occasionally, the marriage covenant was used as an analogy to describe God’s relationship to His people. When the people of Israel and Judah refused to obey Him, or when they practiced idolatry, the prophets accused them of spiritual adultery <Jer. 3:6-10>.

The record of the woman taken in adultery-who, according to the law of Moses, should have been stoned to death-- reveals the wisdom and grace of Jesus <John 8:3-9>. He knew that her accusers were not without sin; and, therefore, they were being self-righteous when they condemned her. When Jesus said to her, “Go and sin no more” <John 8:11>, He did not excuse her sin; he forgave her of it and warned against continuing in adultery.

The apostle Paul catalogued a series of sins that exclude a person from the kingdom of God. The sin of adultery was included in these lists <1 Cor. 6:9>.

ADULTERY

(from Fausset’s Bible Dictionary)

A married woman cohabiting with a man not her husband. The prevalent polygamy in patriarchal times rendered it impossible to stigmatize as adultery the cohabitation of a married man with another besides his wife. But as Jesus saith, “from the beginning it was not so,” for “He which made male and female said, They twain shall be one flesh.” So the Samaritan Pentateuch reads Gen 2:24, as it is quoted in Matt 19:5. A fallen world undergoing a gradual course of remedial measures needs anomalies to be pretermitted for a time (Rom 3:25 margin; Acts 17:30), until it becomes appropriate for a higher stage, in its progress toward its finally perfect state. God sanctions nothing but perfection; but optimism is out of place in governing a fallen world not yet ripe for it. The junction of the two into one flesh when sexual intercourse takes place with a third is dissolved in its original idea.

So also the union of the believer with Christ is utterly incompatible with fornication (1 Cor 6:13-18; 7:1-13; 1 Tim 3:12). The sanctity of marriage in patriarchal times appears from Abraham’s fear, not that his wife will be seduced from him, but that he may be killed for her sake. The conduct of Pharaoh and Abimelech (Gen 12; 20) implies the same reverence for the sacredness of marriage. Death by fire was the penalty of unchastity (Gen 38:24). Under the Mosaic law both the guilty parties (including those only betrothed unless the woman were a slave) were stoned (Deut 22:22-24; Lev 19:20-22). The law of inheritance, which would have been set aside by doubtful offspring, tended to keep up this law as to adultery. But when the territorial system of Moses fell into desuetude, and Gentile example corrupted the Jews, while the law nominally remained it practically became a dead letter. The Pharisees’ object in bringing the adulterous woman (John 8) before Christ was to put Him in a dilemma between declaring for reviving an obsolete penalty, or else sanctioning an infraction of the law. In Matt 5:32 He condemns their usage of divorce except in the case of fornication. In Matt 1:19, Joseph “not willing to make [the Virgin] a public example (paradeigmatisai) was minded to put her away privily”; i.e., he did not intend to bring her before the local Sanhedrin, but privately to repudiate her. The trial by the waters of jealousy described in Num 5:11-29 was meant to restrain oriental impulses of jealousy within reasonable bounds. The trial by “red water” in Africa is very different, amidst apparent resemblances. The Israelite ingredients were harmless; the African ingredients are poisonous. The visitation, if the woman was guilty, was direct from God; the innocent escaped, whereas many an innocent African perishes by the poison. No instance is recorded in Scripture; so that the terror of it seems to have operated either to restrain from guilt or to lead the guilty to confess it without recourse to the ordeal.

The union of God and His one church, in His everlasting purpose, is the archetype and foundation on which rests the union of man and wife (Eph 5:22-33). See ADAM. As he (‘iysh) gave Eve (‘ishah) his name, signifying her formation from him, so Christ gives a new name to the church (Rev 2:17; 3:12). As He is the true Solomon (Prince of peace), so she the Shulamite (Song 6:13). Hence, idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are adultery spiritually (Jer 3:6,8-9; Ezek 16:32; Hos 1:1; 2; 3; Rev 2:22). An apostate church, the daughter of Jerusalem becoming the daughter of Babylon, is an adulteress (Isa 1:21; Ezek 23:4,7,37). So Jesus calls the Jews “an adulterous generation” (Matt 12:39). The woman in Rev 12, represented as clothed with the Sun (of righteousness), and crowned with the 12 stars (i.e. the 12 patriarchs of the Old Testament and the 12 apostles of New Testament), and persecuted by the dragon, in Rev 17, excites the wonder of John, because of her transformation into a scarlet arrayed “mother of harlots,” with a cup full of abominations, riding upon a “scarlet colored beast”; but the ten horned beast finally turns upon her, “makes her naked, eats her flesh, and burns her with fire.” The once faithful church has ceased to be persecuted by conforming to the godless world and resting upon it. But the divine principle is, when the church apostatizes from God to intrigue with the world, the world, the instrument of her sin, shall at last be the instrument of her punishment. Compare as to Israel (‘Aholah), and Judah (‘Aholibah), Ezek 23. The principle is being illustrated in the Roman Catholic Church before our very eyes. Let all professing churches beware of spiritual adultery, as they would escape its penalty.

ADULTERY

(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia)

In Scripture designates sexual intercourse of a man, whether married or unmarried, with a married woman.

1. Its Punishment: It is categorically prohibited in the Decalogue (seventh commandment, Ex 20:14; Deut 5:18): “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” In more specific language we read: “And thou shalt not he carnally with thy neighbor’s wife, to defile thyself with her” (Lev 18:20). The penalty is death for both guilty parties: “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death” (Lev 20:10). The manner of death is not particularized; according to the rabbis (Siphra’ ad loc.; Sanhedhrin 52 b) it is strangulation. It would seem that in the days of Jesus the manner of death was interpreted to mean stoning (“Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such,” John 8:5, said of the woman taken in adultery). Nevertheless, it may be said that in the case in question the woman may have been a virgin betrothed unto a husband, the law (in Deut 22:23 f) providing that such a person together with her paramour be stoned to death (contrast verse 22, where a woman married to a husband is spoken of and the manner of death is again left general). Ezek 16:40 (compare 23:47) equally mentions stoning as the penalty of the adulteress; but it couples to her sin also that of shedding blood; hence, the rabbinic interpretation is not necessarily controverted by the prophet. Of course it may also be assumed that a difference of custom may have obtained at different times and that the progress was in the line of leniency, strangulation being regarded as a more humane form of execution than stoning.

2. Trial by Ordeal: The guilty persons become amenable to the death penalty only when taken “in the very act” (John 8:4). The difficulty of obtaining direct legal evidence is adverted to by the rabbis (see Makkoth 7 a). In the case of a mere suspicion on the part of the husband, not substantiated by legal evidence, the woman is compelled by the law (Num 5:11-30) to submit to an ordeal, or God’s judgment, which consists in her drinking the water of bitterness, that is, water from the holy basin mingled with dust from the floor of the sanctuary and with the washed-off ink of a writing containing the oath which the woman has been made to repeat. The water is named bitter with reference to its effects in the case of the woman’s guilt; on the other hand, when no ill effects follow, the woman is proved innocent and the husband’s jealousy unsubstantiated. According to the Mishna (SoTah 9) this ordeal of the woman suspected of adultery was abolished by Johanan ben Zaccai (after 70 AD), on the ground that the men of his generation were not above the suspicion of impurity.

3. A Heinous Crime: Adultery was regarded as a heinous crime (Job 31:11). The prophets and teachers in Israel repeatedly upbraid the men and women of their generations for their looseness in morals which did not shrink from adulterous connections. Naturally where luxurious habits of life were indulged in, particularly in the large cities, a tone of levity set in: in the dark of the evening, men, with their features masked, waited at their neighbors’ doors (Job 24:15; 31:9; compare Prov 7), and women forgetful of their God’s covenant broke faith with the husbands of their youth (Prov 2:17). The prophet Nathan confronted David after his sin with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, with his stern rebuke (“Thou art the man,” 2 Sam 12:7); the penitential psalm (51) - “Miserere” - was sung by the royal bard as a prayer for divine pardon. Promiscuous intercourse with their neighbors’ wives is laid by Jeremiah at the door of the false prophets of his day (Jer 23:10,14; 29:23).

4. Penal and Moral Distinctions: While penal law takes only cognizance of adulterous relations, it is needless to say that the moral law discountenances all manner of illicit intercourse and all manner of unchastity in man and woman. While the phrases “harlotry,” “commit harlotry,” in Scripture denote the breach of wedlock (on the part of a woman), in the rabbinic writings a clear distinction is made on the legal side between adultery and fornication. The latter is condemned morally in no uncertain terms; the seventh commandment is made to include all manner of fornication. The eye and the heart are the two intermediaries of sin (Palestinian Talm, Berakhoth 6 b). A sinful thought is as wicked as a sinful act (Niddah 13 b and elsewhere). Job makes a covenant with his eyes lest he look upon a virgin (Job 31:1). And so Jesus who came “not to destroy, but to fulfil” (Matt 5:17), in full agreement with the ethical and religious teaching of Judaism, makes the intent of the seventh commandment explicit when he declares that “every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already In his heart” (Matt 5:28). And in the spirit of Hosea (Hos 4:15) and Johanan ben Zaccai (see above) Jesus has but scorn for those that are ready judicially to condemn though they be themselves not free from sin! “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her” (John 8:7). Whereas society is in need of the death penalty to secure the inviolability of the home life, Jesus bids the erring woman go her way and sin no more. How readily His word might be taken by the unspiritual to imply the condoning of woman’s peccability is evidenced by the fact that the whole section (John 7:53-8:11) is omitted by “most ancient authorities” (see St. Augustine’s remark).

5. A Ground of Divorce: Adultery as a ground of divorce. - The meaning of the expression “some unseemly thing” (Deut 24:1) being unclear, there was great variety of opinion among the rabbis as to the grounds upon which a husband may divorce his wife. While the school of Hillel legally at least allowed any trivial reason as a ground for divorce, the stricter interpretation which limited it to adultery alone obtained in the school of Shammai. Jesus coincided with the stricter view (see Matt 5:32; 19:9, and commentaries). From a moral point of view, divorce was discountenanced by the rabbis likewise, save of course for that one ground which indeed makes the continued relations between husband and wife a moral impossibility.

MAX L. MARGOLIS

ADULTERY

(from The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary)

In Jewish thought adultery was seen as the willful violation of the marriage contract by either of the parties through sexual intercourse with a third party. The divine provision was that the husband and wife should become “one flesh,” each being held sacred to the other. Jesus taught: “Have you not read, that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female . . . . and the two shall become one flesh.” When the Pharisees, with the apparent hope of eliciting some modification in favor of the husband, put the question, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate and divorce her?” Jesus replied, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way . . . . whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt 19:3-9). In perfect accord with this also is the teaching of the apostle Paul (Eph 5:25-33; 1 Cor 7:1-13; 1 Tim 3:12). It will be seen that according to the fundamental law it is adultery for the man as well as the woman to have a sexual relationship with a person other than the legal spouse. In ancient times, however, exception was made among the nations generally in favor of the man. He might have more wives than one or have intercourse with a person not espoused or married to him without being considered an adulterer. Adultery was sexual intercourse with the married wife, or what was equivalent, the betrothed bride of another man, for this act exposed the husband to the danger of having a spurious offspring imposed upon him. In the seventh commandment (Ex 20:14) all manner of lewdness or unchastity in act or thought seems to be meant (Matt 5:28).

The Roman law appears to have made the same distinction as the Hebrew between the unfaithfulness of the husband and wife, by defining adultery to be the violation of another man’s bed. The infidelity of the husband did not constitute adultery. The Greeks held substantially the same view.

Trial of Adultery. A man suspecting his wife of adultery, not having detected her in the act, or having no witness to prove her supposed guilt, brought her to the priest that she might be submitted to the ordeal prescribed in Num 5:11-31. See Jealousy, Offering of.

When adultery ceased to be a capital crime, as it doubtless did, this trial probably fell into disuse. No instance of the ordeal being undergone is given in Scripture, and it appears to have been finally abrogated about forty years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The reason given for this is that the men were at that time so generally adulterous that God would not fulfill the imprecations of the ordeal oath upon the wife.

Penalties. The Mosaic law assigned the punishment of death to adultery (Lev 20:10) but did not state the mode of its infliction. From various passages of Scripture (e.g., Ezek 16:38,40; John 8:5) we infer that it was by stoning. When the adulteress was a slave the guilty parties were scourged, the blows not to exceed forty; the adulterer was to offer a trespass offering (a ram) to be offered by the priest (Lev 19:20-22). Death does not appear to have been inflicted, perhaps by reason of guilt on the part of those administering the law (John 8:9-11). We find no record in the OT of a woman taken in adultery being put to death. The usual remedy seems to have been a divorce, in which the woman lost her dower and right of maintenance, thus avoiding public scandal. The expression “to disgrace her” (Matt 1:19) probably means to bring the matter before the local Sanhedrin, the usual course.

The Roman civil law looked upon adultery as “the violation of another man’s bed,” and thus the husband’s incontinence could not constitute the offense. The punishment was left to the husband and parents of the adulteress, who under the old law suffered death. The most usual punishment of the man was mutilation, castration, and cutting off the nose and ears. Other punishments were banishment, heavy fines, burning at the stake, and drowning. Among the Greeks and other ancient nations the adulterer might lose eye, nose, or ear. Among savage nations of the present time the punishment is generally severe. The Muslim code pronounces it a capital offense.

Spiritual. In the symbolical language of the OT adultery means idolatry and apostasy from the worship of Jehovah (Jer 3:8-9; Ezek 16:32; 23:37; Rev 2:22). This figure resulted from the sort of married relationship, the solemn engagement between Jehovah and Israel (Jer 2:2; 3:14; 13:27; 31:32; Hos 8:9). Our Lord used similar language when He charged Israel with being an “adulterous generation” (Matt 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38), meaning a faithless and unholy generation. An “adulterous” church or city is an apostate one (cf. Isa 1:21; Jer 3:6-9; Ezek 16:22; 23:7).

Ecclesiastical. The following views prevailed in the early church:

1. Under Justinian the wife was regarded as the real criminal, and her paramour as a mere accomplice. This view seems to have been held during the whole early Christian period. Gregory of Nyssa makes a distinction between fornication and adultery. A canon of Basle furnishes this definition: “We name him who cohabits with another woman (not his own wife) an adulterer.” Ambrose says: “All unchaste intercourse is adultery; what is illicit for the woman is illicit for the man.” Gregory Nazianzen argues that the man should not be left free to sin while the woman is restrained. Chrysostom says: “It is commonly called adultery when a man wrongs a married woman. I, however, affirm it of a married man who sins with the unmarried.” Jerome contends that 1 Cor 6:16 applies equally to both sexes.

2. A convicted adulterer cannot receive orders. An adulterer or adulteress must undergo seven years’ penance. A presbyter so offending is to be excommunicated and brought to penance. The layman whose wife is guilty cannot receive orders, and if already ordained must put her away under pain of deprivation. An unchaste wife must be divorced, but not the husband, even if adulterous. The adulterer must undergo fifteen years of penitence but only seven for unchastity. Two conclusions were drawn by canonists and divines: (1) divorce, except for adultery, is adultery; (2) to retain an adulterous wife is adultery. A woman must not leave her husband for blows, waste of dower, unchastity, nor even disbelief (1 Cor 7:16), under penalty of adultery. An offending wife is an adulteress and must be divorced, but not so the husband. The Catholic church holds that marriage is not and ought not to be dissolved by the adultery of either party (Council of Trent, sess. xxiv, can. 7).

3. The following are treated as guilty of actual adultery: a man marrying a betrothed maiden; a girl seduced marrying someone other than her seducer; consecrated virgins who sin, and their paramours; a Christian marrying a Jew or an idolater.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Neufeld, Ancient Hebrew Marriage Laws (1944), pp. 163-75; L. M. Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism (1948), pp. 194-215; R. de Vaux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (1961), pp. 36-37, 158-59; M. Fishbane, Hebrew Union College Annual 45 (1974): 25-45; P. Davies, Christian Century 95 (1978): 360-63; Z. C. Hodges, Bibliotheca Sacra 136 (1979): 318-32; M. Lamm, The Jewish Way in Love and Marriage (1980), pp. 41-48, 76-79.

ADULTERY

(from Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

— conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin.

The Mosaic law (Num 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the “water of jealousy.” There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of discovering the guilty party, and of bringing about a divorce. It has been inferred from John 8:1-11 that this sin became very common during the age preceding the destruction of Jerusalem.

Idolatry, covetousness, and apostasy are spoken of as adultery spiritually (Jer 3:6,8,9; Ezek 16:32; Hos 1:1:2:3; Rev 2:22). An apostate church is an adulteress (Isa 1:21; Ezek 23:4,7,37), and the Jews are styled “an adulterous generation” (Matt 12:39). (Comp. Rev 12.)

FORNICATION

(from Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary)

Sexual relationships outside the bonds of marriage. The technical distinction between fornication and ADULTERY is that adultery involves married persons while fornication involves those who are unmarried. But the New Testament often uses the term in a general sense for any unchastity. Of the seven lists of sins found in the writings of the apostle Paul, the word fornication is found in five of them and is first on the list each time <1 Cor. 5:11; Col. 3:5>. In the Book of Revelation, fornication is symbolic of how idolatry and pagan religion defiles true worship of God <Rev. 14:8; 17:4>.

FORNICATION

(from Fausset’s Bible Dictionary)

Used for adultery (Matt 5:32). Also spiritual unfaithfulness to the Lord, Israel’s and the church’s husband (Ezek 16; Jer 2:1; Hos 1:1; Rev 17:4).

CRIME − Fornication.

(from International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia)

Hebrew, zanah = “to commit adultery,” especially of the female, and less frequently of mere fornication, seldom of involuntary ravishment; also used figuratively in the sense of idolatry, the Jewish people being regarded as the spouse of Yahweh (2 Chron 21:11; Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:26). Once we find the derivative noun taznuth (Ezek 16:29). In the New Testament, with both the literal and the figurative application, we find porneia, and porneuo (Matt 5:32; 15:19; John 8:41; Acts 15:20; 1 Cor 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; 10:8; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thess 4:3; Rev 2:14,20-21; 9:21; 14:8; 17:2,4). The intensive ekporneuo = “to be utterly unchaste” is found in Jude verse 7. Every form of unchastity is included in the term “fornication.”

FORNICATION

(from The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary)

(Grk. porneia). Used of illicit sexual intercourse in general (Acts 15:20,29; 21:25; cf. 1 Cor 5:1; 6:13,18; 7:2; etc.). It is distinguished from “adultery” (Grk. moicheia, in Matt 15:19; Mark 7:21). The NIV usually translates porneia as “sexual immorality” and moicheia as “adultery.” Jahn (Biblical Archaeology, sec. 158) thus distinguishes between adultery and fornication among nations where polygamy exists: “If a married man has criminal intercourse with a married woman, or with one promised in marriage, or with a widow expecting to be married with a brother-in-law, it is accounted adultery. If he is guilty of such intercourse with a woman who is unmarried it is considered fornication.” At the present time adultery is the term used of such an act when the person is married, fornication when unmarried; and fornication may be defined as lewdness of an unmarried person of either sex. Its prohibition rests on the ground that it discourages marriage, leaves the education and care of children insecure, depraves and defiles the mind more than any other vice, and thus makes one unfit for the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9; etc.). Our Lord forbids the thoughts that lead to it (cf. Matt 5:28).

Figurative. The close relationship between Jehovah and Israel is spoken of under the figure of marriage, Israel being the unfaithful wife of the Lord, now rejected but yet to be restored. The church of the NT is a pure virgin espoused to Christ (2 Cor 11:2) and thus differentiated from the nation Israel (1 Cor 10:32). The worship of idols is naturally mentioned as fornication (Rev 14:8; 17:2,4; 18:3; 19:2, KJV; NASB, “immorality”; NIV, “adulteries”); as also the defilement of idolatry, as incurred by eating the sacrifices offered to idols (Rev 2:21, KJV; NASB, and NIV, “immorality”). See Idolatry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: D. R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage (1953), pp. 221-67; W. G. Cole, Sex and Love in the Bible (1959), pp. 230-67; J. Jensen, Novum Testamentum 20 (1978): 161-84.

FORNICATION

(from Easton’s Bible Dictionary)

— in every form of it was sternly condemned by the Mosaic law (Lev 21:9; 19:29; Deut 22:20,21,23-29; 23:18; Ex 22:16).

But this word is more frequently used in a symbolical than in its ordinary sense. It frequently means a forsaking of God or a following after idols (Isa 1:2; Jer 2:20; Ezek 16:1; Hos 1:2; 2:1-5; Jer 3:8,9).

SEXUAL IMMORALITY

(from Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology)

Interpersonal activity involving sex organs that does not conform to God’s revealed laws governing sexuality. The account of creation (Gen 1:1-28) includes reproductive activity as an essential part of the developmental scheme. This important function is given special prominence in the narrative describing the creation of woman (Gen 2:21-24). In a process cloaked in mystery, God takes an aspect (Heb. sela, improperly translated “rib” in many versions) of Adam and fashions it into a genetic counterpart that is specifically female, and which matches Adam’s maleness for purposes of reproducing the species. Adam and Eve are thus equal and complementary to one another, of the same physical and genetic composition apart from the slight difference that governs the characteristic nature of male and female fetuses. God tells them to “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill all the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28).

In normal males the sex drive is a powerful biological and emotional force that is often difficult to control satisfactorily, particularly when it expresses itself in aggressive terms. But in the early narratives dealing with human family life there are no specific regulations for sexual behavior apart from the statement that Eve’s husband will be the object of her carnal desires (Gen 3:16). As the world’s population grows, so do the human misdemeanors (Gen 6:5-6), which seem to include mixed marriages (Gen 6:2) and possible sexual perversions, although the latter are not mentioned explicitly. At the same time there are certain situations of a sexual nature that are to be avoided by followers of the Lord. The shame associated with the exposure of male genitalia and the penalties that might accrue to observers (Gen 19:22-25) illustrates one form of prohibited sex-related activity. This represents the beginning of later Jewish traditions that held that nakedness was shameful.

In the patriarchal age, homosexuality was a prominent part of Canaanite culture, as the incident involving Lot in Sodom illustrates (Gen 19:1-9). So rampant was sexual perversion in that place that in later times the name of the city became synonymous with homosexual behavior. God’s judgment upon such a perversion of sexuality was to destroy the city and its corrupt inhabitants.

When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites on Mount Sinai (Exod 24:1-11), his intent was to assemble and foster a select group of human beings who would be obedient to him, worship him as their one and only true God, and live under his direction in community as a priestly kingdom and a holy nation (Exod 19:6). Holiness demands adherence to certain stringent rules regarding worship and general conduct, but also requires a complete commitment of will and motive to the Lord’s commandments.

Because of the gross promiscuity of surrounding nations, whose behavior the Israelites are warned periodically to avoid, the covenant Lord reveals through Moses a collection of strict regulations that are to govern Israelite sexuality and morality. If these directives are followed, the individual and the community alike can expect blessing. But if the Israelites lapse into the immoral ways of nations such as Egypt and Canaan, they will be punished. God’s keen interest in the sexuality of his chosen people has two objectives: to exhibit Israel to the world as a people fulfilling his standards of holiness, and to ensure that, in the process, they enjoy physical, mental, and moral health.

The pronouncements on sexuality given to Moses while the Israelites are encamped at Mount Sinai occur in two separate places in Leviticus (18:6-23; 20:10-21). It should be remembered that Leviticus (the “Levite” book) comprises a technical priestly manual dealing with regulations governing Israelite worship and the holiness of the covenant community. God had chosen the covenant nation to be an illustration to pagan society of how individuals can become as holy as God through implicit faith in him and continuous obedience to his commandments. By setting out guidelines for the priests to teach to the Israelites, God promulgates explicitly a catalog of what is, and is not, acceptable social, moral, and spiritual behavior. In the distinctions between clean and unclean that occur in various parts of the priestly handbook, the emphasis is on that purity of life that should characterize God’s people. Enactments of this kind are unique in the ancient world, and only serve to demonstrate the seriousness of God’s intent to foster a people that can indeed have spiritual fellowship with their Lord because they reflect his holy and pure nature as they walk in the way of his commandments.

A closer look must now be taken at the regulations governing sexuality. In Leviticus 18:6-23, the matter is approached by the use of denunciations to describe immoral behavior. These fall into two groups, one dealing with carnal associations among people closely related by blood (consanguinity), and the other governing the sexual behavior of persons related through marriage (affinity). Accordingly a man is prohibited from copulating with his mother or any other wife belonging to his father; a sister or half-sister, a daughter-in-law or a granddaughter, an aunt on either side of the family, a woman and her daughter or her son’s daughter or daughter’s daughter, a wife’s sister as a rival wife, a neighbor’s wife, and a woman during the menses. Homosexuality is castigated as reprehensible morally, and bestiality is condemned summarily. Everything forbidden had already led to the moral defilement of the nations surrounding Israel, and for these perversions they are to fall under divine judgment (v. 24).

Homosexuality is described in the Mosaic legislation in terms of a man lying with a man “as one lies with a woman” (Lev 18:22; 20:13), that is, for purposes of sexual intercourse. The practice originated in humanity’s remote past, and appears to have formed part of Babylonian religious activities. The Canaanites regarded their male and female cultic prostitutes as “holy persons, “ meaning that they were dedicated specifically to the service of a god or goddess, not that they were exemplars of moral purity in society. While general condemnations of homosexuality occur in Leviticus, none of the pagan Near Eastern religions thought it either necessary or desirable to enact comparable legislation, since for them such activities were all part of normal religious life in temples or other places of cultic worship.

In general, homosexuality in Mesopotamia is not documented to any extent in surviving tablets, but that it was a widespread problem in the Middle Assyrian period (1300-900 b.c.) is indicated by the fact that legislation from that time stipulates that an offender, when caught, should be castrated. This judicial sentence, when compared with the Hebrew prescription of death (Lev 20:13), shows that in Mesopotamian society the offense was regarded as a secondary civic infraction. While homosexuality seems to have been a recognized part of Hittite life, their laws nevertheless prescribe execution for a man who sodomizes his son.

Hebrew tradition, in contrast, is emphatic in condemning homosexuality, even though some Israelites succumbed to it. In Deuteronomy 23:18, male cultic prostitutes, and perhaps homosexuals also, are castigated as “dogs, “ which is most probably the significance of the term in Revelation 22:15. Since the dog was generally despised by the Hebrews as an unclean animal, serving much the same scavenging purpose as the vulture (1 Kings 22:38), the disparaging nature of the allusion is evident.

Bestiality, defined in terms of a man or woman having sexual relations with an animal (Lev 18:23; 20:15-16), is stigmatized in the Mosaic enactments as a defilement for a man and a sexual perversion for a woman. It appears to have been fairly common in antiquity (Lev 18:24), being indulged in by the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Hittites.

The shorter list of prohibited relationships in Leviticus 20:10-21 deals with many of the same offenses, but also prescribes punishments for such violations of Israel’s moral code. Thus a man who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife is to be executed, along with his sexual partner. This is also the penalty for a man who defiles his father’s wife or his daughter-in-law, because such activity constitutes sexual perversion as defined by God’s laws. Homosexuality is once again condemned, and the sexual perverts sentenced to death. The marriage of a man, a woman, and her mother is deemed wicked, and the offenders sentenced to be burned with fire so as to expunge completely the wickedness of the act from the holy community. Bestiality, condemned already as a perversion, is regarded as a capital offense, which includes the animal also.

The marriage of a man with his sister from either side of the family is declared a highly immoral union, and the participants are to be put to death. The same is true of a man and a woman engaging in sexual activity during the woman’s menstrual period. Such blood is considered highly defiling, and a gross violation of the purity that God desires as the norm for Israel’s social behavior. The seriousness with which God assesses his holiness is reflected in the severe penalties prescribed for the infractions listed above. The phrase “their blood will be on their own heads” is a euphemism for capital punishment. Sexual relations between a man and his aunt, or between a man and his brother’s wife, are regarded as dishonoring the legal spouses, and are accorded the lesser sentence of childlessness. In some cases, however, this is tantamount to causing the death of the family, a prospect that few Hebrews could contemplate with equanimity. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, the law allows a man to marry his deceased brother’s childless wife so as to rear a son for his brother’s family, but this is very different from a man marrying his brother’s wife while her legal husband is still alive.

There are important reasons why these enactments were part of ancient Hebrew law. Moral purity and spiritual dedication were fundamental requisites if the chosen people were to maintain their distinctive witness to God’s power and holiness in society. The prohibitions reinforced the traditional emphasis on family honor, since the family was the building block of society. It had to be maintained at all costs if society was to survive. Any marriage relationship that was too close would have exerted a devastating effect on community solidarity by provoking family feuds that could last for centuries.

Serious problems would also have arisen through intermarriage when the result of such unions was the concentration of lands and riches in the hands of a few Hebrew families. For modern observers, however, the greatest danger by far would have resulted from the pollution of the genetic pool because of inbreeding. The bulk of the relationships prohibited by the legislation involved first and second degrees of consanguinity, that is, parent-child and grandparent-grandchild incest. Coition within the forbidden degrees of family relationships generally results in genetic complications when offspring are produced. Recessive genes often become dominant and endow the fetus with various kinds of diseases or congenital malformations. This seems to have been the force of the Hebrew tebel [l,b,T], a word that occurs only in Leviticus 18:23 and 20:12. It comes from balal [l;l’B], meaning “to confuse, “ and conveys aptly the genetic upheaval that occurs in many cases of inbreeding, since God’s rules for procreation have been upset. Only in a few instances does close inbreeding produce beneficial effects by removing recessive lethal genes from the genetic pool. (This may have happened in the case of ancient Egyptian royalty.) Nevertheless, even in such instances, inbreeding diminishes the energy and vigor of species that are normally outbred, and reinforces the wisdom and authority of the Mosaic legislation.

When God entered into a covenant relationship with the Israelites he furnished them with certain fundamental regulations engraved in stone to symbolize their permanence. These “Ten Commandments, “ as they are styled, contain certain injunctions of a moral character dealing with adultery, theft, false witness, and covetous behavior (Exod 20:14-19). The last three offenses are social in character, involving the community of God to a greater or lesser degree. But the commandment prohibiting adultery deals with an act of a highly personal nature, occurring between normally consenting adults, which violates the “one flesh” character of marriage.

The fact that a commandment deals specifically with this form of behavior seems to indicate that adultery was common among the ancient Hebrews. At all events, adultery was understood as sexual intercourse between a man and another man’s wife or betrothed woman. Similarly, any act of coition between a married woman and a man who was not her husband was also regarded as adultery. Certain exceptions to these stringent rules were tolerated in Old Testament times, however. A man was not considered an adulterer if he engaged in sexual relations with a female slave (Gen 16:1-4), a prostitute (Gen 38:15-18), or his wife’s handmaid with the spouse’s permission (Gen 16:4). Nor was a man deemed to be in an adulterous relationship if he happened to be married to two wives.

The traditions banning adultery, made specific in the Decalog, were enshrined deeply in Israel’s national life. The prophets warn that divine judgment will descend upon those who practice it (Jer 23:11-14; Ezek 22:11; Mal 3:5). The Book of Proverbs, however, takes more of a social than a specifically moral view of adultery, ridiculing it as a stupid pattern of behavior that leads a man to self-destruction (6:25-35). The prophets use the term figuratively to describe the covenant people’s lack of fidelity to the high ideals of Mount Sinai. The prophets view the covenant as equivalent to a marriage relationship between God and Israel (Isa 54:5-8). Any breach of the covenant, therefore, is an act of spiritual adultery (Jer 5:7-8; Ezek 23:37).

In his teachings Jesus stands firmly in the traditions of the Mosaic law and prophecy by regarding adultery as sin. But he extends the definition to include any man who lusts in his mind after another woman, whether she is married or not. It is thus unnecessary for any physical contact to take place, since the intent is already present (Matt 5:28). By this teaching Jesus demonstrates that, under the new covenant, motivation is to be considered just as seriously as the mechanical act of breaking or keeping a particular law. The motivation of a believer should always be of the purest kind, enabling obedience to God’s will freely from the heart, and not just because the law makes certain demands.

Whereas the female is cast in an inferior, passive role in the Old Testament sexual legislation, Jesus considers the woman as equal to the man in his teachings about divorce and remarriage. In consequence the woman has to bear equal responsibility for adultery. Much discussion has taken place about Christ’s return to the strict marriage ideals of Genesis 2:24 (Mr 10:6) and the explanatory clause “except for marital unfaithfulness” (Matt 5:32; 19:9), which allows for remarriage after divorce and which does not occur in either Mark 10:11 or Luke 16:18.

Before New Testament technical terms are discussed, it is important to realize that Christ was directing his teaching at the new age of grace, which in his death was to render Old Testament legal traditions ineffective. The Mosaic law was specific about the conditions under which divorce could occur. The wife had fallen into disfavor because her husband had found something unclean or indecent about her, and therefore he was entitled to divorce her. Jesus teaches that this procedure was allowed by God as a concession to human obduracy (Matt 19:8), even though the Creator hated divorce.

In New Testament times, only the man was able to institute divorce proceedings. It was in reality, however, a rare occurrence, and at that mostly the prerogative of the rich, since poor men could not afford another dowry or “bride price” for a subsequent marriage. The accused woman was protected under the law to the extent that her husband’s accusations had to be proved. Thus some scholars have seen the Matthean explanatory clause as indicating immorality as the sole ground for divorce, following the contemporary rabbinical school of Shammai, and not for some purely frivolous cause, as the school of Hillel taught. If this explanation is correct, Jesus was addressing a Jewish controversy that had no bearing on God’s marriage ideals in the age of grace, and which Mark and Luke consequently ignored because the exception did not apply to their audiences of Christian believers.

The most common term in the New Testament for sexual immorality is porneia [porneiva], and its related forms pornos [povrno”] and porneuo [porneuvw]. An emphatic form of the verb, ekporneuo [ejkporneuvw], “indulging in sexual immorality, “ occurs in Jude 7. These words have been translated variously into English, some renderings for an immoral person being “whoremonger, “ “fornicator, “ “loose liver, “ and “sexually immoral.” The term pornos [povrno”] refers to a man who engages in coition with a porne [povrnh], or female prostitute. The extended description of wanton immorality in Romans 1:24-32 discusses women spurning natural sexual relationships for unnatural ones, that is, indulging in lesbian activities of the kind practiced at Lesbos in pagan Greek religious ceremonies. The males are described as inflamed with lust for one another, and this leads to indecent and immoral behavior. In 1 Corinthians 6:9 the sexually immoral are classified as adulterers, male prostitutes, and homosexual offenders. In 1 Timothy 1:10, sexually immoral people are described comprehensively as adulterers and perverts.

The New Testament contains far less teaching about sexual immorality than the Old Testament, on which Christian morals and ethics are based. The Mosaic law condemned adultery, but placed less emphasis on prohibiting some other sexual offenses. In the end, disregard for the Mosaic enactments brought Israel to ruin, and this made it important for the Christian church to distinguish carefully, among other matters, between adultery as a sin and porneia [porneiva], which was a fatal perversion.

The New Testament requires believers to deny physical and spiritual lusting after people and false gods, and to conduct their behavior at a high moral and spiritual level. Sexual activity is to be confined to the marriage relationship, and if a married man or woman has sexual intercourse with someone other than the spouse, that person has committed adultery. To be most satisfying for the Christian, sexual activity must reflect the values of self-sacrificing love and the unity of personality to which the Christian’s reconciliation to God by the atoning work of Jesus brings the believing couple.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Dictionaries/BakersEvangelicalDictionary/bed.cgi?number=T367

Home