Abstract. In this essay I will be attempting to unpack cultural understandings of sexual ethics represented in scripture. It will argue the Hebrew cultures understanding of sexual ethics revolved around the male head of the household. Using this as a lense it highlights sexual relationships deemed by Hebrew culture to be acceptable and those which are considered sinful. It gives attention to the household relationships using the concepts of headship, property ownership and purity associated with sexual ethics in scripture.

The scriptures’ teaching on sexual ethics generally tends to focus on how men view and treat women. The teaching is complementarian to the core. So as an advanced warning, please know I think there are considerable cultural differences in how we now view women, sex and sexual relationships with that of Hebrew society. To some degree I don’t intend to water down the biblical understanding of sex. So it might be a bit confronting for some and I don’t recommend this page for non-Christians questioning whether they want to become Christians or not.

I have been reading several books. I tend to group them as either ‘traditional’ or ‘progressive’. Here is a few of the main contributors.

And here are a few JSTOR articles I’ve looked at:

• JSTOR Malina Does Porneia mean fornification (link)
• JSTOR Jensen A critique of Bruce Malina Porneia Fornification (link)
• JSTOR Temple Prostitution in 1 Cor 6.12-20 (link)

Researching and writing this page has helped me considerably to understand sexual ethics using biblical categories. I’ve let scripture change my opinions and what I’ve done here, I hope demonstrates to some degree my opinions are based on what the scripture says about sex.

However, I fear this will be an issue. So, my hope is that readers of this page will open themselves up to thoughtfully consider two groups of scriptures. Those used by traditional proponents which align with their existing understanding and those used by the progressive proponents which may challenge them to think afresh what God is revealing to us in his word.

My goal here is to interpret scripture with scripture, coming up with what I think is a better overall understanding on some forms of sexual relationships in scripture.

Contents

Creation and Marriage

Genesis 1

The Genesis account of creation is foundational for sexual ethics, so this is where we will start. In the very first chapter God demonstrates his power and authority over creation bringing it into being.

The creation account establishes first and foremost God’s headship and authority over all creation. He creates man and woman in his image and likeness (Gen 1.26-28). References to ‘Image’, ‘likeness’ and ‘dominion’ in the immediate context suggests a part of being made in God’s image means to have dominion over creation. In the creation of man (male and female), God gives him dominion over creation. Second in charge, responsible for the care taking of God’s creation (cf. Ps 8.6-8).

What immediately follows is another command from the Lord to multiply and fill the earth. The command itself highlights man is in service to the Lord. God filled His creation himself. So too are man and woman to fill the earth. Just as the Lord has dominion over his all, so too does he give authority over man and woman to dominate and subdue the world.

Thus in the creation account there is an emphasis on dominion (authority, vocation) and multiplication (filling the earth).

God’s creation sets the context for the account of marriage. Marriage ought to be considered under the umbrella of the governing ethic of human responsibility to the Creator and the human task over His creation.

Genesis 2

Both of these features continue to be evident in the depiction of marriage. Marriage and sex come under the banner of God’s ‘very good’ creation (1 Tim 4.2-4). The classic passage from which most define marriage is Genesis 2.20-25.

For Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. 22 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

24 Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Gen 2.20-25)

‘Woman’, ‘Taken from the man’, ‘brought her to the man’. The ‘rib’ (צַּלְעֹתָ֔י ṣǎlʿō ṯāyʹ, lit. side) leaves the man to form the woman. Then the woman is brought to the man. One man becomes two people (man and woman) who then come together.

The Hebrew אִשָּׁה transliterated into English as ‘ishshah’ is the noun used for ‘woman’, ‘wife’ and ‘female’. Like the greek, the same noun is used interchangeably for woman and wife.

We can see this is an extension of the Hebrew for ‘man’ which comes from the Hebrew אִישׁ transliterated as ‘ish’. So man is named ‘ish’ and woman ‘ish-shah’ because she was taken out of man. (Note: ‘man’ is also the rendering of the Hebrew אָדָם transliterated as ‘adam’). This is also the most common Hebrew noun rendered as ‘husband’.

‘Therefore’, one significant word determining the meaning of Gen 2.24, connects the ‘taking out’ of the woman and her being ‘brought to’ the man with the description of marriage which involves ‘leaving’ and ‘holding fast’.

‘Leave’, ‘father and mother’. The subject of the passage is the male groom / husband. Notably, he leaves his former family, which suggests this is the normal living state for most people in biblical times. I believe implied in the movement is a change in spheres of male headship. Headship is important to this essay, so I’ll deal with headship in more detail below. I suggest to some degree living with one’s parents was the common living arrangement that made the fathers headship binding.

Here the man was under the headship of his father, when he leaves his father’s household to hold fast to his wife, he assumes headship over his wife (or woman, ‘ishshah’). It’s not explicitly mentioned, but the woman likewise, was under the headship of her father. Now in a new family relationship she is under the headship of her husband.

These represent the two spheres of influence women could be under – fathers and husbands (cf. Num 30.3,6). Thus Genesis 2.24 in part reflects a change in headship for both the man and his wife. The wife in particular is no longer under the headship of her father, now instead her husband.

‘Hold fast’. ‘Hold fast’ as opposed I suspect to ‘send away’. This describes the strength and permanency of the relational bond between the husband and wife. The expression is used in a variety of contexts, normally to God’s word. But particularly relevant here is the command to ‘hold fast’ to the covenant with the Lord (Dt 11.22; 30.20; Isa 56.6).

‘The man and his wife’. The wording describing the relationship between the man and the woman highlights the woman has become the man’s possession (‘his wife’). The noun is not used here, but the second most common Hebrew noun rendered as ‘husband’ comes from בַּעַל transliterated as ‘baal’ (Ex 21.22; Lev 21.4; Dt 24.4; 2 Sa 11.26; Est 1.17, 20; Prov 12.4; 31.11, 23, 28). This noun transliterated as ‘baal’ is probably better translated english as ‘owner’ which is how it is properly translated in Ex 21:28,29,34; Jdg 19.22; Job 31.39; Isa 1.3. The husband is the owner of his wife. I think ownership and property rights are a subcategory of male headship.

(Note: As mentioned in the introduction there are considerable cultural differences in how we now view women with that of Hebrew society. Ownership of women is one of them. Personally I’m uncomfortable with the concept and I think a core part of being a gentleman is respecting women, not oppressing them or thinking of them as possessions. While Jesus and Paul did to some degree give women the same rights as men,  I think there is still much more progress to be had from the cultural values we see in scripture.)

Again not used here, the word we see in English, ‘married’ comes from a variety of Hebrew words, which seem to differ regarding whether the man or the woman is the subject. Regarding men marrying women לָקַח is transliterated as ‘laqach’ means: ‘to take’ (e.g. Gen 19.14; 27.46). Regarding women being married to men הָיָה is transliterated as ‘hayah’ means ‘become’ or ‘be’ (e.g. Lev 22.12; Num 30.6).

The man takes the woman, she becomes his wife.

Words depicting marriage are also occasionally translated from words in Hebrew which we’ve already seen. בַּעַל baal; ‘owner’, ‘lord’, and אִשָּׁה ishshah; ‘woman’, ‘wife’, ‘female’ (Dt 24.1; Mal 2.11). Exodus 21.3 for example in the ESV says, ‘If he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him.’ Literally it reads closer to, ‘If he comes in as an owner of a woman, then his woman shall go out with him’. The ancient Hebrew understanding of marriage was equivalent to ownership of women.

‘One flesh’. The man and his wife become ‘one flesh’. This statement primarily refers to the oneness of the new family unit more so than sexual intercourse. For example, the expression ‘one body’ in 1 Cor 12.12-13 describes a corporate unit. Jesus highlights this primary understanding of ‘one flesh’ in Mt 19.5-6 when he prohibits men divorcing their wives and sending them away. This is one case where Genesis 2.24 is depicted as a prescription for the marriage bond between a husband and his wife. Once joined they ought not to separate.

However it’s fair to say sexual union is assumed in this ‘one flesh’ expression in that sexual intercourse consummates the marriage. By consummation I mean the initiation and the ongoing maintenance of the union. Another passage referring to Gen 2.24 describes sexual intercourse as ‘joining’ to become ‘one flesh’ (1 Cor 6.16-17).

The creational account of marriage depicts a change in male headship and ownership from father to new husband. It’s in this context the ‘one flesh’ relationship of the man and woman including sexual intercourse comes under the description of ‘very good’.

What we see here are several of the core elements of a marriage:

• Male headship-ownership (man-wife),
• Permanence of the relationship (hold fast), and
• New family-household unit (one flesh).

All these together depict male-female (husband-wife) relationships in which sexual intercourse is described as ‘very good’. While it may be implied, no formal marriage covenant is explicit in the text. Nor is there any sort of marriage ceremony depicted.

Male Headship

The relationship between the male head and the people in his household includes the notion of ‘headship’. More broadly, the man was considered the ‘head’ his wife (later on I will say his wives), their children and the slaves in his household (e.g. Eph 5.22; 6.1; 6.5; Col 3.18, 20; 4.1). The term is used in the following passages relating to husbands and their wives;

22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, …

31 “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. (Eph 5.22-25, 31-32)

3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. …

8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. (1 Cor 11.3, 8-10)

There is a debate about the meaning of the word ‘head’ (Gk. κεφαλή Translit. kephalē). I don’t have space to do the debate justice here. However, a casual word study shows kephalē unsurprisingly refers most often to a person’s literal head which is part of their body. The head is the highest part of the body, the place where hair grows and where crowns are placed.

In the NT, Paul uses the literal head-body paring to describe three corporate entities:

Head	God (the Father)	Christ (anointed King)	Husband
Body	Christ (the Son)	Church	Wife

(Note: Personally, I don’t think all aspects relating to the nature, essence, personhood and functions of the Trinity, the God-Christ relationship describe the Husband-Wife relationship. This is another debate associated with the supposed ‘eternal subordination of the Son’ which I have no interest in pursuing.)

In most cases the head-body pairing gives the most importance to the head, compared to everything else in the body. The two main options debated for the meaning of ‘head’ are authority and source/origin. For example;

And [God] seated him [Christ] at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, (Eph 1.20-22)

9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. (Col 2.10)

‘Head’ in these passages is associated with rule and authority. We should note from Eph 5.22-23 that the wife ought to submit to her husband because he is her head. i.e. Headship requires submission.

On the other hand;

15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every joint with which it is equipped (Eph 4.15)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. (Col 1.15-18)

‘Head’ in these passages denotes something of origin, the source from which other parts of the body emanate.

In my opinion I don’t think these alternatives are mutually exclusive and Paul seems comfortable applying both associations close together.

Personally I think the term most likely lends itself to designate the part of the body which controls and leads the body – hence I prefer the authority meaning. But I would include aspects such as belonging, responsibility and ownership in my understanding of the concept.

I do not think the source/origin option rules out authority. Being the source or origin of another confers one’s authority over them. For example Father-Son or Creator-Creation relationships.

Part of the creational understanding of marriage depicts male headship over his wife and household.

Primary Purpose

People are married today for a variety of reasons. Some good, some questionable and some bad. I realise some may not agree with me here. So, in my opinion, the primary purpose of marriage understood in scripture is to have legitimate children to preserve the family line. This is the creational mandate to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 1.28). This isn’t the only purpose; marriages are symbols reflecting the relationship between Christ and his Church (Eph 5.22-33).

The institution of marriage is temporary, given in anticipation of a fallen age where all people inevitably die. The primary purpose of marriage in the bible is to give birth to legitimate male heirs who will continue the family line.

Consider some of the implications from Jesus’ exchange with the Sadducees in Luke’s gospel (Lk 20.27-36). The Sadducees refer to the practice of levirate marriage (Dt 25.5-6). In the event a husband died and left his wife and family with no male heirs to continue the family line. His brother, under the law of Moses, was obligated to take the widow as his wife, and their firstborn son would succeed in his brother’s place.

Jesus associates marriage with ‘this age’ because people, the ‘sons of this age’ die. According to this logic, the reason for children is to continue the family line after the male husband has died.

But when Jesus returns his people will be raised from the dead. They will not be able to die anymore. This removes the need for them to have children to continue their family line and therefore the need to be married.

Jesus’ statements imply an overall narrative framework which explains the advanced purpose of marriage.

Creation

Fall

This Age(of Sin, Death and Marriage)

Age of Resurrection (New Heavens and New Earth)

Marriage is a temporary institution. According to Jesus, people in this age marry because they will die. In this age sex within marriage is the way people can live on through the generations of legitimate male heirs who follow them. In the new resurrection age God’s people will not marry (and thus have children) because they cannot die.

Stages of Marriage

The main parties and elements involved in marriage in Hebrew society were: the Bride and Groom, the bride’s Father, the bride price and various conditions and expectations associated with the union.

There were three stages of a marriage in the Bible:

Betrothal

Sexual Consummation

The Wedding Feast

Stage 1: Betrothal (e.g. Mt 1.18-21)

Betrothal required consent of the prospective bride and her father. This involved signing the “ketubah” contract (Creating the marriage bond-covenant).

• i. The bride would choose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract (covenant) with him called a “ketubah”.
• ii. Once this is signed the couple is 100% married but do not have sex yet.
• iii. Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate until of age.

Stage 2: Sexual Consummation (e.g. Gen 29.21-25)

In Hebrew called the “chuppah”.

• i. Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the bride price as set out in the ketubbah contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the marriage at the bride’s home.
• ii. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.
• iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
• iv. The groom hands the bloodied “proof of virginity cloth” to the witnesses chosen by the bride’s parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.

Assuming they were virgins, a father’s daughters were given in return for a bride price. The biblical practice of marriage includes a financial transaction.

The bride price was a form of insurance for the wife kept by the father. In the event of her husband’s death or divorce, she would need support. The bride price was meant to be kept aside by her father against this possibility. I assume it could be used by the father to invest for a return. So he financially gains from the marriage of his daughter. The bride price seems to vary with different arrangements.

In Dt 22.28-29 the bride price is 50 shekels of silver. In Ex 22.16-17 the passage refers to some sort of going rate for virgins. In Gen 29.15-20 Jacob agreed to serve seven years for each of Laban’s daughters. When Jacob was about to flee from Laban, his wives comment on Laban’s squandering of their bride price (Gen 21.14-15).

It was important for the father and the bride, that the bride remain a virgin before marriage. This would affect the bride price and whether anyone wanted to marry her or not. I’ll discuss virginity in further detail below.

Stage 3: The Wedding Feast (e.g. Jn 2.1-5)

• i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a procession for a wedding feast.
• ii. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual of marriage

The Typical Hebrew Household

The household is the basic unit of Hebrew society. I say household and not family because in addition to the husband, wives, sons and daughters, a household could also include servants and concubines depending on how wealthy the husband is. Below is a tree depicting the kinds of normal household relationships in Hebrew society.

Husband (Male Head)

The husband, or patriarch, is the male head who ruled the household within and represented it in its dealings with outsiders. His responsibility was to love and care for the household, maintain its wealth and public standing in the community. Other members of the household were tools for the patriarch, subordinated to him in the pursuit of their common goals.

Genealogies and Patriarchy

The Old Testament societies lived in a patriarchy. Their culture was organized around the centrality of paternity. The lineage of the tribes of Israel was determined by who your father was. The Israelites were serious about their genealogies (e.g. 1 Chr 1-9). Hebrew society traced back to Abraham (Mt 1.1-17) and ultimately to Adam (Lk 3.23-38).

All genealogies in scripture are dominated by father-son relationships, women rarely get a weigh in. In this kind of culture it was absolutely essential for you to know who your father was if you were to make your way in the world. For example people were barred from serving as priests if their lineage was uncertain (Ezra 2.62; Neh 7.64).

Husband’s Property

The Hebrew understanding of the relationship between the male head and his household is quite different to our own cultural understanding. Husbands were considered to be the owners as well as the protectors of their households. Their ownership includes their wives, their children as well as their slaves.

Ownership and property rights play a significant role in sexual ethics.

There is considerable evidence that women during biblical times were treated as commodities. Most women spent their entire lives under the supervision or authority of a male, typically first a father and then a husband. (women-in-first-century-greco-roman-culture)

“The first century Jewish man thanked God that he was not born “a Gentile, a slave, or a woman.” This was one element in a prayer of thanksgiving that was in the ancient Jewish prayer book.

Teachings in the Talmud emphasized however that every individual possessed equality, dignity, and self-worth. But in practice this equality was defined in terms of strict male-female roles.

The home was regarded as the primary sphere of expression and activity for a woman and the public arena was reserved for men. The rabbis taught that these two spheres were separate but equal. Though women did much of the hard work, they had a low position, both in society and in the family.” (truthmagazine.com)

Wives

In Hebrew culture, a husband could have one or more wives depending on how wealthy they were. This is called Polygyny. I’ll speak about this in more detail later.

Ownership of Wives

Since so much depended on a person’s paternity, it became necessary for men to control women. Wives were the property of their husbands, because controlling women was the best way for society to be able to determine everyone’s paternity. As we will see, many of the commands relating to sex concern the property rights of the husband, the male head of the household.

Exodus 20.17 is one passage which groups a man’s possessions. It prohibits coveting another man’s possessions including his ‘house’, ‘wife’, ‘servants’, ‘ox’, and ‘donkey’. The grouping of the husband’s possessions (Land, wife, servants, livestock) includes their wives. A little later in Exodus 21.22 and 21.28 the term ‘baal’ is used to describe ownership of the man’s woman and ox respectively.

These passages highlight that a husband’s or ‘owners’ (baals) wife (or woman ‘issah’) was considered his property. Hopefully I’ve linked this to the creational understanding of marriage in Genesis.

Likewise in Ezekiel, when the Lord depicts himself taking possession of two wives Oholah and Ohalibah (Eze 23.1-4). The text says, ‘they became mine’. Here the marriage is described in terms of acquiring a possession.

Children

As mentioned above, note, the primary purpose of marriage was to have legitimate children to preserve the family line. Male children were especially prized because the first male child normally became the primary heir of the family. The firstborn.

Along similar lines to wives, children were also considered the property of their fathers. Notably, Fathers could sell their children into slavery (Ex 21.7-8). This passage highlights that children like wives were considered a husband’s property as well.

Slaves

“Slavery existed in most cultures in the ancient world and in all the cultures surrounding the land of Israel during biblical times.

Slavery could take the form of debt slavery, in which people sold themselves or their children to clear their debts, punishment for crime, the birth of children to slaves, and the enslavement of victims of piracy or war.

Many slaves in the ancient Near East had been prisoners of war. Others sold themselves or their children into slavery in order to pay their debts. The state was seldom strong enough to effectively supervise large number of slaves. Thus, many were semi-free and worked as serfs on state and temple estates, or as domestic slaves in wealthier households. This required less supervision. Others were true slaves—often branded to be easily identified as such—and could be bought, sold, transferred by inheritance, etc. …

The Old Testament seems to assume that slavery is part of the human experience and provides the Israelites with regulations for slavery. ” (Nässelqvist, D. & Jardim, G., 2016. Slavery J. D. Barry et al., eds. The Lexham Bible Dictionary.)

Concubines

I’ll deal with the concubines in more detail below. For now concubines were female slaves (servants) used for pleasure and sex.

Esther is an example of a well known concubine. Est 2.7-9, 13-14 refers to ‘Harem’ and ‘Concubines’ indicating that Esther was placed in a harem, the place in the palace for the king’s concubines. Like wives, concubines were considered the property of their king / husband.

Children born to concubines were valued less than those of wives. Abraham’s children born through his concubines were sent away from Isaac and his family (Gen 25.5-6).

Sexual Purity

Sexual Intercourse

Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman in the bible is referred to in a number of ways.

• ‘Know her’, ‘Knew her’ (1 Sam 1.19; 1 Ki 1.4; Jdg 19.25)
• ‘Lay with her’, ‘lies with her’ (Gen 19.33-35; 30.16; 34.2; Ex 22.16; Dt 22.22, 25; 1 Sam 2.22)
• ‘Goes in to her’ (Dt 22.13),
• ‘Uncover nakedness’ (Lev 18; Gen 9.21-23)

There are a few concepts associated with sex in the bible. The first two are fairly self evident. The third concerns how sex affects a person’s purity and cleanliness.

Pleasure

It seems fairly self evident that the authors of scripture considered sex pleasurable. In his pursuit of pleasure the author of Ecclesiastes says concubines are the ‘delight of the sons of man’ (Ecc 2.8) and Song of Songs is famous for its portrayal of sexual pleasure (e.g. Song 8.1-4).

The first two I believe are linked. Male climax depends on the pleasure they experience in sex. I’m sure God built pleasure into the sex act in order to encourage people to have sex and to bring the sex act to the point where it becomes reproductive.

Sex Defiles

On the other hand, there is a negative associated with sexual intercourse in the bible. As discussed previously, Jesus implies the institution of marriage was given in anticipation of the age in which people would die.

Creation

Fall

This Age(of Sin, Death and Marriage)

Age of Resurrection (New Heavens and New Earth)

Our first recorded instance of sex in the bible was after the fall (Gen 4.1-2). To date, the only recorded instances of sex are between people who know sin and have been tainted by it.

Sex was also understood along the lines of ritual purity and cleanliness. Sex defiles.

This cuts against the grain of how some in our culture understand sex today. Some might say, ‘Sex is good’, ‘there is nothing wrong with sex’, ‘sex cannot make a person dirty’.

The law of Moses is states;

18 If a man lies with a woman and has an emission of semen, both of them shall bathe themselves in water and be unclean until the evening. (Lev 15.18)

‘Lies with a woman’, ‘emission of semen’. The law of Moses is quite sensitive to semen and waste that comes out of the body. Male ejaculation is considered in the bible to be unclean. So was excrement and therefore going to the toilet (Dt 23.12-14). When a man lies with a woman, the emission of semen is considered unclean. The sex act in itself makes both the man and the woman unclean. They have to wash and wait, until they are to be considered clean again.

The above passage highlights that defilement is not always a result of immorality. Sometimes it is, as we will see below. However this is not always the case. Sometimes there are everyday normal functions of the body and interactions between people which are considered right, good and acceptable, yet these at the same time make a person unclean. What we see here I suspect are a set of rules intended to highlight God is holy and separate and so are his people to be from the nations around them.

After a long string of sexual prohibitions in Leviticus 18 (which we will look at later), the Lord says;

24 “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, 25 and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. (Lev 18.24-25)

Here we see a much greater defilement caused by immoral and consequently prohibited sex acts. Either way this again highlights that sexual intercourse makes a person unclean.

The instructions for priests ban them from marrying any woman who has had sex. The grouping is interesting.

13 And he [the priest] shall take a wife in her virginity.

14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or

a woman who has been defiled, or a prostitute,

these he shall not marry. But he shall take as his wife a virgin of his own people, 15 that he may not profane his offspring among his people, for I am the Lord who sanctifies him.” (Lev 21.13-15)

The four types of women grouped together are assumed to all have had sex. They are defiled and any offspring they had to priests would be considered ‘profaned’. Which is why the priests (who were to remain holy for their service) were prevented from marrying them.

I think the order in which they are listed is important. The women are viewed as having been defiled by sexual relations from a lesser to a greater degree. Widows, divorced women, women who have been defiled (unmarried non-virgins), prostitutes.

Depending on the context of the sexual intercourse. Sex defiles a person to varying degrees.

The list could also be categorised as women who have had sex in marriage, and woman who have had sex outside marriage.

‘Widow’, ‘Divorced woman’. These have both once been married. They might normally be eligible for marriage because they are no longer married, but priests are barred from marrying them because they are assumed to have had sex. They are not pure like virgins.

‘Woman who has been defiled’, ‘Prostitute’. Both of these are women who have had sex outside a marriage relationship. The first could be either a rape victim or a concubine. The second was how they would regard promiscuous women as well as prostitutes. It includes women who continued to have one off sexual encounters.

Knowing that sex makes both women and men unclean, sexual virginity is logically associated with purity and holiness. Virginity was valued in some respects because it represented purity which is necessary for access to the holy God.

(Note: Virginity in the scriptures as far as I can tell, except for the passage below, is a category used to describe women, not necessarily men. This is course reflects a double standard where women remain defiled by sex, but men can do what they want and remain untainted.)

We might think this view of sex changes in the new covenant. I’m not so sure it does. I will discuss purity maps and changes from old to new covenant later. For now, the book of Revelation echoes a similar thought that sex defiles a person.

2 And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, 3 and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth.

4 It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins.

It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, 5 and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless. (Rev 14.2-5)

‘144000 who had been redeemed’. According to my reading, this represents the symbolic total of all the tribes of Israel / the people of God.

‘Not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins’. For sure, John intends to convey a symbolic reality regarding persistence in sin and defiling acts more broadly. Otherwise no married man would be included in the group of the 144,000 redeemed. As it is, Jesus affirmed Abraham, Issac and Jacob were alive with God in Lk 20.37. Each of these men were married. Therefore interpreting scripture with scripture we ought to affirm marrieds are part of the 144000 redeemed and John’s meaning here is symbolic, not to be taken literally.

However the symbolism originates from the underlying understanding that sex defiles a person and this clearly is carried over into the new covenant. I find it difficult to believe John would use this symbolism if he didn’t think sex in this age defiles.

What these above passages suggest there is that both Hebrew and Christian cultures believed there is no such thing as pure sex in this age. All sex (good and immoral) in this age defiles to some degree.

Damaged Goods (Loss of Virginity)

The definition of ‘damaged goods’ is a person who is considered to be no longer desirable or valuable because of something that has happened to them.

I realise this is probably a difficult concept for most. If we apply the concept that sex makes a person unclean it’s logical to then assume non-virgin women in Hebrew society were considered to varying degrees to be ‘damaged goods’. (We may not think that of course) Unmarried non-virgins especially were viewed by Hebrew society as being dirty and spoiled. In most cases unmarried women who have lost their virginity are simply assumed to be prostitutes.

Except the revelation passage above, male virginity is rarely made an issue in scripture. I think scriptures teaching on sex generally reflects a double standard. A strict standard for women, a more relaxed standard for men.

There was a test for virginity for newly married women.

13 “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her 14 and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ 15 then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate. 16 And the father of the young woman shall say to the elders, ‘I gave my daughter to this man to marry, and he hates her; 17 and behold, he has accused her of misconduct, saying, “I did not find in your daughter evidence of virginity.” And yet this is the evidence of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the cloak before the elders of the city. 18 Then the elders of that city shall take the man and whip him, 19 and they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the father of the young woman, because he has brought a bad name upon a virgin of Israel. And she shall be his wife. He may not divorce her all his days.

20 But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, 21 then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst. (Dt 22.13-21)

This is a horrible practice.

‘Evidence of virginity’. If the woman had no evidence of virginity, it would bring her parents into disrepute. They were trying to present their daughter as pure and able to produce legitimate offspring, when she was not.

‘Whoring’. The unmarried non-virgin is simply assumed to be prostituting herself, by making herself sexually available to any man. Only prostitutes are treated this way.

‘In her father’s house’. Key here to understanding why a defiled woman would be killed is knowing that while in her father’s house she is under his authority and bound to behave in certain ways because of their relationship. I think daughters were under a covenant obligation to honor their fathers who have authority over them (Ex 20.5). They were to do this by remaining pure, thus protecting their families reputation and their father’s right to the bride price.

Note, if prostitutes were being judged, they were not killed simply for being a prostitute. See 1 Ki 3.16-28 for example. The key reason here for why they would be put to death was because she was under her father’s headship and authority.

There is a similar allusion in Leviticus regarding the daughters of priests (Lev 21.9). The blame primarily falls on the woman. She was assumed to have been prostituting herself. In part this may mean she was seeking her own financial gain through having sex. However, again I suspect the key issue is that her sexual activity happened while she was under her father’s authority. We can learn about the defiling nature of sex from the horrible rape of Tamar (2 Sam 13.18-20). Afterward Tamar lived a ‘desolate woman’. After being raped Tamar’s chances of being married are destroyed. She was left emotionally and socially damaged.

It’s logical to assume from these passages that there would be considerable pressure felt by female virgins under their fathers household to abstain from all forms of sex and remain virgins. In many cases the punishment for voluntarily losing virginity was social ostracization and even death.

Legitimate Male Heirs

However, a significant life goal of women in the bible is that they be married and give birth to legitimate male heirs.

Frequently women in the bible lamented their lack of male heirs (Gen 18.12; 30.1; Ps 127.3-5; 128.3-6). For example Hannah in 1 Samuel grieves over her lack of male heirs (1 Sam 1.4-8). Even though she was married, she was not happy. Hannah was grieving over her inability to produce male heirs.

How does this fit in with how they valued virginity? I will make a further assumption: Women who were found to be non-virgins could either be pregnant or possibly could not be trusted to be faithful to prospective husbands. Consequently, if a woman who had lost her virginity later got married had children, the children would be deemed to have questionable genealogy and validity.

Within Israel, an internal hierarchy was created on the basis of access to the Holy God, a hierarchy reflected in the sacred precincts of the temple itself. … Those whose lineage could not be verified and those (males) whose reproductive organs were damaged were in the outer margins of Israel’s purity map (Neyrey, 95–96). Those “born of illicit unions” (Deut 23:2) and their descendants to the tenth generation were barred from the congregation. Since the “race” was holy, those whose place in that “race” was questionable were pushed to the outermost fringes. (p143, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels)

Given this life goal was common among unmarried Israelite women as well as married. It’s logical to assume virginity was prized among unmarried women. In so far as that prospective male suitors would know any children born to them would be clean and unquestionably recognised as theirs.

Virginity was generally only prized in so far as it led to marriage which in turn led to male heirs. Consider Jephthah’s daughter (Jdg 11.36-40) who ‘wept for her virginity’. What we see here is the grief that comes with not having experienced a significant life goal. She wept not simply because she was a virgin, but because she had no children.

Virginity in itself was valued, in so far as it was in most cases a desirable quality for women eligible for marriage. To remain a virgin, however was generally not seen as a good thing. Sexual defilement becomes necessary in order to have children.

What to do with Biblical Silence?

Discussion of polygyny and concubinage will ultimately bring about some debate about whether they are sinful or not. So what are the ethical principles involved and how we go about determining what was culturally acceptable and sinful regarding sex. Were these practices considered sinful? Or perhaps were they considered somehow good?

Those holding to the traditional view of sex and marriage often delineate the boundary between good and sinful sex by marriage. Thus all fornification (sex outside marriage) is sexual immorality. In my experience some holding the traditional view try to force interpretations of these passages so they are perceived to be wrong.

We must however be wary of forcing every text to fit our paradigms and assuming people within the Hebrew and Christian cultures did that. All of us, of course, bring our theology to the text. None of us, if we’re honest, are free from presuppositions. There is no neutral reading of the text. Nevertheless, there would be no point in doing exegesis if our preconceptions could not be altered. We must be willing to listen to the text and ask ourselves if we assume they have a system that is alien to what we see in the scriptural text. There comes a point where our understanding of them needs to be revised because other texts speak against the formulation.

(Please note: Our understanding of marriage today and the vows we take to get married in my opinion rule out polygyny and concubinage. The specific promise to ‘forsake all others’ means for the man to put his wife first above all others. This is more than a vow to forsake intimate relations with anyone who is not their spouse. It means that each person places their spouse, and by extension the marriage itself, above all other earthly relationships. So any question about polygyny and concubinage must, in my opinion require consent on the part of the spouse and take into account the well being of the marriage relationship, let alone the laws of the land. Given our cultures understanding of marriage as monogamy, I pretty much rule these practices for married people out from the onset.)

I’ve found that ethical arguments framing sexual ethics tend to fall into three categories.

Creational Boundaries Freedom within God’s law.

Genesis 2.24 is prescriptive of God’s creational intention for sex and marriage.

Sexual Ethics are governed by Male headship, Property and Purity.

Creation and Ethics

The creation account describes a moral universe, God’s intention for his creation. God calls it ‘very good’ (Gen 1.31). The inherent goodness of the creational order stems from God’s character (good, righteous, holy). First in Genesis 1-2 and then afterward (before and after the fall) God continues to define what is good and evil.

An example of this is the kinds of food people are given to eat. In Genesis 1 God gives humankind fruit and vegetables to eat (Gen 1.29).

Consequently, some might argue that this functions prescriptively. God’s intention for what people eat is only fruit and vegetables. This comes under the umbrella of God’s very good creation. Therefore eating anything other than this must be sinful. We can possibly see this in Rom 14.2-3. This very same logic could be applied by some in the Hebrew and Christian cultures to sexual ethics with respect to the creation account of marriage and sex.

I can’t imagine anyone arguing that eating anything other than fruit and vegetables falls out of God’s intention for what we eat, because as we see later after the flood in Genesis 9 God extends allowable food to include meat (Gen 9.2-4).

The upshot of this development in ethics is that God’s intention for sex often argued from the creation account is likewise open to development and revision based on God’s later words and actions.

The ultimate guide to morality and ethics is not creation, it’s the creator.

Creational Boundaries

As a general principle, many people (including myself) believe we are free to worship God, rule and enjoy His creation (including sex) within the ethical boundaries God sets for us.

This seems fairly evident from God’s instructions for what the man and woman are allowed to eat in the Garden of Eden (Gen 2.15-17).

‘Every tree of the garden’. The Lord gives the man general freedom to eat from any tree he pleases.

‘You shall not eat’. But he prohibits eating from one tree. It’s a simple rule. General freedom, except where God commands otherwise.

As a hypothetical, if God said they could eat of every tree in the garden, except the apple tree. Then he said eating oranges was good. If they ate from a pear tree would they consider that a sin? What would they to do with the silence?

Is Genesis 2.24 prescriptive, descriptive or both?

The traditional view regarding sex defines marriage as a lifelong covenantal union between one man and one woman. Basically according to the traditional view, Genesis 2.24 is God’s prescription for sexual relationships. All sexual intercourse outside this kind of marriage relationship is deemed sinful.

Traditional arguments for sexual ethics tend to bounce between Gen 2.24 and New Testament references to it (Mt 19.5; Mk 10.7; 1 Cor 6.16; Eph 5.31) arguing the creation account of marriage is God’s prescription for sex. Genesis 2.24 does function prescriptively in some respects, so we will consider these now.

Christ and the Church (Eph 5.22-33)

Marriage is symbolic of the relationship Christ has with the church.

Love	Husbands	Christ
Submit	Wives	Church

Eph 5.22-33 highlights that the Genesis 2.24 account of marriage functions prescriptively in a couple respects.

Paul instructs ‘Wives to submit’ and ‘Husbands to love’. Christ humbled himself and became flesh, he died on the Cross for the forgiveness of sin, our justification and reconciliation. He gave his all for the Church. This is love. Christ’s behaviour functions prescriptively in a general sense for how husbands ought to relate to their wives in marriage. Likewise wives are to submit to their husbands. Submit to their headship and respect their husbands. That is, God’s intention for marriage extends to how husbands and wives are to relate to one another.

He says, the ‘mystery is profound’. The covenant of marriage between a man and a woman is symbolic of Christ’s relationship with the Church. It models how Christ has loved the Church and how the church ought to respond.

Joined to your Wife (Mt 19.3-9)

Jesus refers to the creation account of marriage in a significant discussion with some Pharisees (Mt 19.3-9). The Pharisees want to trip Jesus up so they can discredit him. The context of the whole discussion is about divorce.

Jesus answers their question about divorce by referring to the ‘joining together’ and the ‘one flesh’ marriage bond. The family unit. In saying this He does allude to the sex act which consummates the marriage.

‘Divorce’, ‘Send her away’. The law of Moses gives some provision for divorce. If a man finds some indecency in his wife he may write her a certificate of divorce and send her away. Isaiah 50.1 and Jeremiah 3.8 both describe instances where the Lord God after finding iniquity in the nation Israel, sent her away with a certificate of divorce into exile.

‘Hardness of heart’. In this instance, Jesus is concerned for the well being of the divorced wife. If she was sent away she would be destitute.

Jesus condemns the practice of divorce associating it with hardness of heart. The law of Moses is generally treated as God’s instruction to Israel. Here Jesus highlights this particular instruction, initially assumed to be God’s, was in fact Moses’.

Jesus revokes Moses’ instruction saying divorce for any reason, except immorality is adultery. The fact that the Lord God in Isaiah and Jeremiah sent Israel away with a certificate of divorce highlights that in the case of marital infidelity, it is acceptable to divorce. Jesus is not condemning His Father for hardness of heart or saying he committed adultery in doing so.

Genesis 2.24 therefore functions in a limited sense prescriptively, in that marriages between faithful marriage partners should not be dissolved. More specifically men should not divorce their wives and send them away destitute.

Note: Using this passage of scripture to counsel someone to remain in an abusive relationship is absolutely contrary to God’s intention for marriage. Which as we have seen above is for the husband to love and give himself up for his wife and the wife to submit to her husband. Marriages which do not conform to this pattern are potentially abusive and miss God’s intention for marriage. The priority we ought to give is to people, not marriage. When we prioritize the marriage itself over the well-being of the people in it, we misapply Jesus’ teaching and completely miss God’s heart for marriage.

Joined to a Prostitute (1 Cor 6.12-17)

Comparing 1 Cor 6.12-13 with 1 Cor 10.23-25 highlights that Paul has cultic prostitution in mind in 1 Cor 6.15-17 (Rosner, B.S., Temple Prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6.12-20).

1 Cor 6.12-13	1 Cor 10.23-25, 28
12 “All things are lawful for me,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful for me,” but I will not be dominated by anything.	23 “All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.
13 “Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food”—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.	24 Let no one seek his own good, but the good of his neighbor. 25 Eat whatever is sold in the meat market without raising any question on the ground of conscience. … 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, for the sake of the one who informed you, and for the sake of conscience

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. (1 Cor 6.15-17)

‘Joined to a prostitute’. Jesus says married couples joined together by the Lord should not separate. Paul says those joined to a prostitute should cease to do so.

‘One body’, ‘one flesh’, ‘one spirit’. Paul shows the bond created by joining is intimate, including body, flesh and spirit. He consequently opposes Christians being ‘joined’ to prostitutes.

Genesis 2.24 thus functions prescriptively recognising that sex joins two people together in an intimate manner involving body, flesh and spirit.

Thus Paul taught Christians to be selective in who they have sex with. Not joining with unclean prostitutes, especially prostitutes involved in foreign worship.

It might be argued Paul only endorses sexual relations with other Christians. Not necessarily, 1 Cor 7 highlights some Christians were married to unbelievers. Thus Paul did allow sexual relations with non-believers in existing relationships. At least in a marriage relationship.

Overprescription?

To what degree was Genesis 2.24 understood in Hebrew and Christian cultures to function prescriptively and delineate good sex from bad? Was the covenant of marriage the boundary? Arguments using Genesis 2.24 prescriptively in my opinion tend to boil down to one or two principles:

1 – Sex in marriage is described as good in Genesis. Therefore every other form of sex must be sinful. This is close to saying, ‘If something is not described as good, it must be sinful’.

2 – The purpose of sex is for marriage. Using sex outside of its purpose is sinful. Universalised this is like saying, ‘Using something outside of its purpose is sinful’.

The stakes are high because a sexually immoral person will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor 6.9; Gal 5.19).

To what degree did they take Genesis 1-2 as prescriptive and/or descriptive for sexual relationships?

In their book, How to Read the Bible for All its Worth (Amazon) Fee and Stuart state a general interpretative principle for reading texts prescriptively,

“Unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something [or alternatively not do something], what is only narrative or description does not function in a normative way.” (p124)

Some rightfully apply this interpretative rule to the healings, miracles, dreams and visions the early church experienced in Acts. Here we have a bunch of scriptural prophecies and historical events which some argue apply prescriptively to Christians ever after. Some argue these are not prescriptive for the new age in the Spirit. They only described what happened then.

I believe it’s fair to apply this same interpretative rule to the account of marriage and sex in Genesis 2.24. If we look at what Jesus and Paul say about it, yes Genesis 2.24 does function prescriptively in some cases. Regarding marriage:

• Marriages were understood to be symbolic. A marriage between a man and a woman is symbolic of Christ’s relationship with the Church (Eph 5.31-32), and
• Marriages were understood to be permanent. Men should not divorce their wives and send them away destitute (Mt 19.3-9)

Regarding sex in general:

• Sex was considered a spiritual joining. Christians should not be joined to prostitutes (1 Cor 6.16).

Do these in themselves suggest Israel and the early Christians considered polygamy and concubinage sinful? Personally, I don’t think they did in their culture. Nowhere in scripture is Gen 2.24 used by people to rule out other forms of sexual relationships between God’s people.

To better understand how they understood these we ought to look at the whole counsel of God and interpret scripture with scripture to determine whether they believed polygyny and concubinage were good and acceptable.

Working things out

How do I know if something was considered sinful or acceptable in Hebrew and Christian cultures? Well I try and work with this method;

Something is sinful…

1. If in scripture God’s written law condemns (prohibits) it, or
2. (Probably) If in scripture the action is couched or viewed in a negative way, or
3. If it violates the greatest commandments to love (Mt 22.36-40), or
4. If it is contrary to a person’s conscience (Rom 14.22-23).

Now what I think is acceptable and good;

Something is acceptable…

1. If in scripture God’s written law does not condemn (prohibit) it, and
2. (Possibly) If in scripture the action is couched or viewed in a positive way, and
3. If it can be done in good conscience (Rom 14.22-23).

In addition I’ve been trying to learn from God’s interaction with these practices. If Holy God in scripture is portrayed as doing something or working with and not against these practices, then I generally assume outright that they did not view the practice as sinful.

Note the first two of each list encourage us to know what the scripture says. To know the underlying principles guiding certain issues and be able to apply them in varying contexts. I’ve been seeking to do this by highlighting the core principles of property and purity which I think shape how they understood sexual ethics in the scriptures.

Sex with your own Property

So far in this page I hope I have highlighted that concepts of male headship and property ownership play a significant role in marriage and household relationships in Hebrew society. Sexual ethics come under this umbrella and involve the male heads property rights to some degree. So in this section I’ll discuss sexual relationships between a male head of the household and some of the women belonging to him.

Sex with your Wives (Polygyny)

I hope I have sufficiently argued for the legitimacy of sexual intercourse in marriage between one man and one woman (cf. Gen 2.24). I assume most people in Hebrew culture believed this is ‘very good’. Polygyny in the Old Testament however, is possibly a different case.

Polygyny (from Neoclassical Greek πολυγυνία from πολύ- poly- “many”, and γυνή gyne “woman” or “wife”) is the most common and accepted form of polygamy, entailing the marriage of a man with several women.

Deuteronomy 17.17 instructs future Israelite kings not to acquire (property issue again) many wives. The limit is not specified, however some I suspect argue this passage condemns polygyny. However if we look at the case of Solomon, renowned for his polygyny, it was not that he had many wives that was his problem. It was the fact that they were foreign (1 Ki 11.1) and turned him away to other gods (1 Ki 1.2-8). Acquiring multiple foreign women as wives was condemned because it was assumed they would lead their husbands away into idolatry.

In the New Testament, Paul a couple times stipulates a qualification for being an overseer or deacon is that they have ‘one wife’ (1 Tim 3.2, 12; Tit 1.6). The instruction could be understood several ways.

Paul does not intend to rule out people who have never been married from leadership. The early church fathers who generally thought sex defiled a person, frowned upon widows remarrying because they thought people only did it to have more sex. A widow who has had multiple husbands (1 Tim 5.9) suggests a pattern of divorce and infidelity. People who marry again possibly fit into the same category.

Regarding polygyny, I suspect many Christians were not rich enough to acquire multiple wives (bride price, accommodation, etc). Wives require a fair amount of maintenance in Paul’s thinking (1 Cor 7.32-33). So it’s possible the restriction allows them to devote more time to ministry.

Returning to the Old Testament, in Genesis 29.31; 30.16-17, 22-24 God is not depicted as having a problem working with Jacob’s two wives Rachel and Leah. He listens to them both and gives them sons. The twelve tribes of Israel, God’s holy nation (Ex 19.5-6), came from a polygamous household.

In Deuteronomy 21.15-16, God instructs the Israelites how to treat the children coming from two wives. Again, God doesn’t condemn the practice. Note the practice of divorcing women who were married contrary to the law of Moses is precedented (Ezr 10.2-3). It’s notable here that while it’s explicitly noted in the law there are two wives, God doesn’t instruct them to divorce.

Different from these instructions, Jesus in Matthew 19.8 revokes the certificate of divorce instruction in Deuteronomy 24.1-4 explaining Moses wrote it down because of the hardness of their hearts.

So I think it’s possible for some to argue that any instruction which seems to conflict with the ‘traditional’ understanding of sex and marriage in Genesis 2.24 might be put into this category – a concession given to hard hearts. This seems to me to be a dubious interpretive move. Where do we stop picking and choosing which laws they were commanded to live by? Only Jesus has authority to revoke instructions in the law of Moses. Unless he does, we ought to interpret instructions like these in the law of Moses as God’s instruction to Israel.

Polygyny in service to God

Chronicles describes the history of Judea up to their exile into Babylon. Joash was one of the few righteous kings who for a limited time in his case, ‘did what was right in the eyes of the Lord’ (2 Chr 24.2). This was largely due to the positive influence of a priest named Jehoiada. What’s interesting about Jehoiada is that he gave Joash two wives.

24 Joash was seven years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty years in Jerusalem. His mother’s name was Zibiah of Beersheba. 2 And Joash did what was right in the eyes of the Lord all the days of Jehoiada the priest. 3 Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters. … 15 But Jehoiada grew old and full of days, and died. He was 130 years old at his death. 16 And they buried him in the city of David among the kings, because he had done good in Israel, and toward God and his house. (2 Chr 24.1-3, 8)

‘Did what was right in the eyes of the Lord’. The statement reflects how God viewed Joash’s behaviour, which includes him having two wives. Consequently, they would have thought polygyny was right in the eyes of the Lord.

‘Done good in Israel and toward God’. The text includes Jehoiada giving two wives to Joash as part of what he did good to Israel and God. From statements such as these I assume having two wives and having children from them was seen as a good thing.

God gives many wives

In 2 Samuel we have a stronger suggestion having multiple wives was seen as a good thing. In context, Nathan the prophet is confronting David over his adultery with Bathsheba and murder of her husband Uriah. Nathan alludes to the good the Lord had done for him prior to the incident.

7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives [issah] into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. (2 Sam 12.7-8)

‘Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel’. Nathan is simply passing on God’s words and judgment to David.

‘I gave you’, ‘masters wives’, ‘add to you much more’. In addition to delivering David from Saul (David’s ‘master’) and receiving his house. God says He was the one who gave him Saul’s wives. Wives, or more literally, women in the plural. God then says had David not committed adultery and murder, He would have given him much more women as wives. Basically from this, I assume if God gives a person multiple wives then it was viewed by them as a blessing and not a sin. This is much more than mere accommodation of polygyny, they would have believed God was promoting it.

God’s Polygyny

Jeremiah 3.6-10 and Ezekiel 23.1-4 are arguably the strongest passages implying their understanding that having multiple wives was fine with God. The Lord God depicts himself in a polygamous marriage.

23 The word of the Lord came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother. 3 They played the whore in Egypt; they played the whore in their youth; there their breasts were pressed and their virgin bosoms handled.

4 Oholah was the name of the elder and Oholibah the name of her sister. They became mine, and they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalem. …

37 For they have committed adultery, land blood is on their hands. With their idols they have committed adultery, and they have even offered up to them for food the children whom they had borne to me. (Eze 23.1-4, 37)

‘Oholah’, ‘Samaria’, ‘They became mine’. God takes possession of two wives. They become the Lord’s property. His ownership of them are what qualifies the consequent sex act which led to bearing children (‘they bore sons and daughters’).

God’s polygyny debunks the argument that everyone believed the Genesis account of sex and marriage was understood to be prescriptive in every respect.

God’s depiction of himself in polygamous relationships and him giving multiple wives to King David highlights Genesis 2.24 was not understood to strictly limit the number of women a man can marry to one.

Although marriage is not mentioned in Ezekiel 23, I assume it was through a marriage covenant that they become the Lord’s property (cf. Eze 16.8; Ex 19.5). Note, their idolatry is described as adultery. This concerns the Lord’s property rights and their breaking covenant vows.

The illustration is symbolic of course, representing the unfaithfulness of Samaria (Israel) and Jerusalem (Judah) towards God. But the illustration highlights they believed God had no problem with depicting himself in a polygamous marriage and therefore because God cannot sin, they believed polygyny was not wrong.

Summary

Acceptance of polygyny seems to be sprinkled throughout the Old Testament (I’ve listed Genesis, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). Multiple authors of scripture seem to accept it.

I’ve located polygyny under the umbrella principles of male headship and ownership coming from the creational understanding of sex and marriage.

God is perceived as not simply tolerating polygyny, He is perceived to be actively involved in promoting the practice. God’s very own actions highlight they believed polygyny was acceptable and not a sin. God’s instructions in the law of Moses maintain polygamous marriages. God has given multiple wives to select husbands and kings as a blessing. God depicted himself in a polygamous marriage.

Sex with your Slaves (Concubines, Temporary Wives)

As we’ve already seen a father under financial stress could sell his daughter off as someone’s slave. If they did this the daughter would leave the sphere of authority of her father (Gen 2.24 ‘leave father and mother’) and come under the headship and authority of her new master, the head of a new household.

Concubines were slaves owned by the male head of the household and used for pleasure and sex.

Unlike wives, their relationship with the significant male in the household could be temporary. They could be sold off to another or simply let go. Unlike a marriage situation, sex with a concubine was not done to consummate a relationship, rather the focus was on pleasure.

Again I recognise this could be a sensitive topic for some. What I’m trying to do is highlight significant aspects of sex in Hebrew culture and show how they align with the values of male headship, property and purity.

A concubine could be either a Hebrew girl bought from her father, a Gentile captive taken in war, a foreign slave bought, or a canaanite woman bond or free.

Concubines did of course bear children, ultimately for the male head. But these were not valued as greatly as children born to wives. Multiplying children through concubines would not normally complicate the inheritance lines, but would increase the available family workforce and the family wealth.

I define a master – concubine relationship with the following criterion;

• the master exercises headship and authority over the concubine
• they are not legally married to each other
• the relationship can be temporary
• they live together in the same household
• they are not related by family.

Rachel and Leah, Jacob’s wives for example, had Jacob lie with their servants, Bilhah and Zilpah so they could have children through them.

3 Then she [Rachel] said, “Here is my servant Bilhah; go in to her, so that she may give birth on my behalf, that even I may have children through her.” 4 So she gave him her servant Bilhah as a wife, and Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. … 9 When Leah saw that she had ceased bearing children, she [Leah] took her servant Zilpah and gave her to Jacob as a wife. (Gen 30:3–5, 9)

‘As wife’. Bilhah and Zilpah were given over as ‘wives’. The Hebrew word we have seen before is אִשָּׁ֑ה‘issah’. Later on, Bilhah is identified as Jacob’s concubine (Gen 35.22). The word here is פִּילֶ֣גֶשׁ transliterated as ‘pileges’. This highlights the term ‘wives’ (‘issah’) is at times used to refer to concubines as well.

Concubines on occasion were called ‘wives’ highlighting the term can be used to describe both.

To some degree concubines had similar rights as wives and were treated as such. However they weren’t valued as wives and didn’t have the same rights as wives.

‘Give birth on my behalf’. Note also, although Bilhah and Zilpah would bear children, because they were owned by Rachel and Leah, their children were considered to be Rachel and Leah’s as well. Rights of property and ownership governed the role and place of the concubines and who ultimately owned their children (cf. Gen 16.2-3; Ex 21.4).

Jacob didn’t value Bilhah and Zilpah and their sons as highly as he valued Leah and Rachel and their sons. [In Genesis 32] when Jacob saw Esau coming with 400 men, he spread out his family with Bilhah and Zilpah and their sons going first; Leah and her sons were positioned second. Rachel and Joseph were in the rear and farthest from potential harm from Esau. If Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s sons were truly the son of Leah and Rachel, Jacob would have integrated them with their adoptive mothers rather than place them first in the family column. (Roth, obscurecharacters.com)

Among the Israelites, men commonly acknowledged their concubines, and such women enjoyed the similar rights in the house as legitimate wives.

Temporary Relationship

Concubines had the same rights as any other slave. For example slaves weren’t allowed to be physically abused (Ex 21.20, 26-27). The Lord gives instructions to Moses for the treatment of slaves used for sex in Exodus.

22 And the Lord said to Moses, “Thus you shall say to the people of Israel: … 21 “Now these are the rules that you shall set before them. …

7 “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.

8 If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has broken faith with her.

9 If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her as with a daughter.

10 If he takes another to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights.

11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Ex 20.22; 21.1, 7-11)

‘Lord says to Moses’. God recognised the practice of concubinage. He did not stop the practice, he did not condemn the practice, instead he permitted it. He gave specific instructions for the treatment and care of concubines.

‘Sells his daughter as a slaves’. The instruction describes a (poor) father selling his daughter into slavery (concubinage). Obviously this was not something I would expect a father would want to do. They would only do it if forced to, maybe if their family was starving.

‘She shall not go out as the male slaves do’. The text highlights they took special care for how female slaves were treated when they were let go from service.

Unlike wives, the male head’s relationship with his concubines could be temporary.

‘Designated her for himself’, ‘If he takes another wife to himself’. It’s implied here from ‘designated’ the daughter / slave is sold as a concubine (lower class wife), either for her new master or his son. In this case, if she is designated for his son, the new master has to treat her as a daughter.

‘Broken faith with her’. Breaking faith is a covenant concept (Num 5.6,12; Josh 22.20). While different from that of a normal wife, the expression suggests they had some sort of agreement or relationship.

‘Food’, ‘clothing’, ‘martial rights’. Under the law of Moses the master is required to provide the concubine with food, clothing and her own conjugal rights.

What this passage does not do is condemn separating from concubines. This is quite distinct from the question the Pharisees poised and Jesus answered (Mt 19.3-9). As we’ve seen, concubinage is often recognised as a temporary arrangement (Ex 20.22; 21.1, 7-11; Gen 21.12). In the New Testament Paul encourages slaves to separate from their masters if they can (1 Cor 7.21). So basically, Jesus did not say all sexual relationships constitute a ‘one flesh’ permanent bond, only marriage covenants.

Ethics of Concubinage

Pertaining to my future discussion on establishing whether some sort of behaviour was deemed by Hebrew culture as acceptable and not a sin. As already noted above, in the context of giving laws to live by for Israel, God did not stop or condemn concubinage. He permitted it to continue and has issued instructions for caring for concubines.

Concubinage does fit under the general banner of slavery. In our time slavery is a horrible practice which over the last few hundred years been rightfully abolished. However our understanding of slavery is potentially different from that in cultures of the Old and New Testaments.

In New Testament times, slavery was synonymous with service. Which is why ‘slave’ is often translated ‘bond-servant’ to remove the negative connotations we now have with the word ‘slave’. Being someone’s slave for them could be a bit like us working for a boss in a job (e.g. we are God’s slaves / servants), so perhaps there could be some good to it at times. Note also some slaves given the opportunity to be freed, wanted to remain in slavery (Dt 15.16).

I can group concubinage with general descriptions of people’s obedience to God’s law and God’s blessing in scripture.

Abraham’s concubines

Abraham is well known for having sex with Hagar, Sarai’s servant, on Sarai’s request in order to produce a male heir. Ishmael was the result (Gen 16). When God refers to the incident it’s notable he didn’t condemn Abraham for what he had done or his offspring, rather he blessed Ishmael.

17 Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, “Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?” 18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before you!”

19 God said, “No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him. 20 As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.

21 But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year.” (Gen 17.17-21)

Soon after this event, when Sarah had born Isaac, Sarah demanded that Abraham sends Hagar and Ishmael away.

10 So she said to Abraham, “Cast out this slave woman with her son, for the son of this slave woman shall not be heir with my son Isaac.” 11 And the thing was very displeasing to Abraham on account of his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, “Be not displeased because of the boy and because of your slave woman. Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring be named. 13 And I will make a nation of the son of the slave woman also, because he is your offspring.” (Gen 21.10-13)

‘Cast out this slave woman’, ‘God said’, ‘Do as she tells you’. The key issue for Sarah seems to be she feared Ishmael would share in Abraham’s inheritance. Abraham was initially reluctant to send Hagar away. However, God instructs Abraham to go ahead with Sarah’s demand to terminate his relationship with Hagar.

This stands in contrast to the hold fast requirement for marriage in the Genesis account and highlights they believed God did not condemn the temporary nature of concubinage.

Some time after this event and possibly the birth of Isaac, Abraham took more concubines, as noted near the end of his life.

5 Abraham gave all he had to Isaac. 6 But to the sons of his concubines Abraham gave gifts, and while he was still living he sent them away from his son Isaac, eastward to the east country. (Gen 25:5–6)

During their meetings, had God condemned using concubines behind the scenes Abraham would probably have stopped. Abraham’s continued practice suggests God didn’t condemn the practice and continued to allow Abraham to believe it was an acceptable thing to do.

‘Sent them away’. Abraham did send the sons of his concubines away however, because he wanted to keep them apart from Isaac, the true heir of his family line.

After Abraham sent the sons of his concubines away and he died, God initiates contact with Isaac his son. He gives a glowing report of Abraham’s conduct.

2 And the LORD appeared to him and said, “Do not go down to Egypt; dwell in the land of which I shall tell you. 3 Sojourn in this land, and I will be with you and will bless you, for to you and to your offspring I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath that I swore to Abraham your father.

4 I will multiply your offspring as the stars of heaven and will give to your offspring all these lands. And in your offspring all the nations of the earth shall be blessed, 5 because Abraham obeyed my voice and kept my charge, my commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” (Gen 26:2–5)

We ought to bear in mind both Isaac and the Lord had first hand experience with Abraham’s concubinage. It’s then noteable to observe what the Lord says about Abraham’s obedience.

‘Kept’, ‘my commandments’, ‘statutes’, ‘laws’. God says Abraham kept His commands and laws. I think it’s implied here he kept all God’s commands, statutes and laws (cf. Rom 4; Heb 11). This makes it unlikely that Abraham’s concubinage was considered a sin. They probably thought that other people who practiced concubinage like Abraham could be regarded by the Lord similarly.

‘Multiply your offspring’. It may be a little stretch, but I think the reference to multiplication as part of the blessing for Abraham’s obedience has in view God’s creation mandate to multiply and fill the earth (Gen 1.28). Ash observes,

It is noteworthy how the universal [creational] blessings of fruitfulness and multiplication are now transposed into a new and particular key in the context of the Abrahamic promise (Gen. 12:2; 15:5; 17:5f. and onwards in the Old Testament). (Loc 3198, Marriage, Sex in the Service of God)

If this includes the offspring from his concubines as well as his wives, it therefore means they believed God was actively fulfilling the creational mandate to multiply and fill the earth through the use of concubines.

A similar argument could be made for how God positively views Caleb’s and Rehoboam’s concubinage in Dt 1.34-36; 1 Chr 2.46-50 and 2 Chr 11.16-12.2 respectively when God positively views their faithfulness at certain points in time.

David’s ‘wives’ (and concubines)

David is the benchmark of faithfulness to which most of the kings mentioned in Kings and Chronicles are measured against. During his early years 2 Samuel describes David’s rise to power, including how many joined his side and his taking of Jerusalem. All these blessings are attributed to the Lord.

10 And [wa] David became greater and greater, for the Lord, the God of hosts, was with him.

11 And [wa] Hiram king of Tyre sent messengers to David, and cedar trees, also carpenters and masons who built David a house.

12 And [wa] David knew that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel. (2 Sam 5.10-12)

‘The Lord’, ‘Established him king over Israel’, ‘Exalted his kingdom’. I take from these statements that we are meant to understand that people flocking to David’s rule and his military victories are all part of God’s work to establish him as King over Israel.

Starting again from verse 12, the very next few verses say;

12 And [wa] David knew that the Lord had established him king over Israel, and that he had exalted his kingdom for the sake of his people Israel.

13 And [wa] David took more concubines [pileges] and wives [issah] from Jerusalem, after he came from Hebron, and more sons and daughters were born to David. 14 And these are the names of those who were born to him in Jerusalem: Shammua, Shobab, Nathan, Solomon, 15 Ibhar, Elishua, Nepheg, Japhia, 16 Elishama, Eliada, and Eliphelet (2 Sam 5.13-14)

‘And’. The Hebrew conjunction ‘וַ’ transliterated as ‘wa’ links the set of passages together as God’s blessing over David.

‘Concubines and wives’. The immediate context suggests David’s taking more concubines (pileges) and wives (issah) were understood as part of the Lord’s blessing on David as well, which includes the establishment of his rule and exultation of his kingdom.

As mentioned previously when Nathan confronts David over the matter of Uriah, he refers to God giving David multiple wives;

7 Nathan said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, ‘I anointed you king over Israel, and I delivered you out of the hand of Saul. 8 And I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives [issah] into your arms and gave you the house of Israel and of Judah. And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more. (2 Sam 12.7-8)

‘Masters wives’. Given 2 Sam 5.13-14 and that fact already mentioned, the term ‘wives’ or women may also include concubines (e.g. Gen 30.3-5; 35.22), it’s reasonable to assume here God gave David his concubines as well as his wives. Provided this is the case, God was perceived to be actively involved in facilitating the practice here.

Ecclesiastes

Wondering about the meaning of life and how to best live it the author of Ecclesiastes at one time pursued pleasure and enjoyment (Ecc 2.1). He says;

7 I bought male and female slaves, and had slaves who were born in my house. I had also great possessions of herds and flocks, more than any who had been before me in Jerusalem. 8 I also gathered for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and provinces. I got singers, both men and women, and many concubines, the delight of the sons of man. (Ecc 2:7–8)

‘Concubines’, ‘Delight of the sons of man’. The general description of the authors pursuit of pleasure is filled with possessions and good things of which gaining slaves and concubines is included. Note they are all property related. Having concubines is seen as a good thing in this scripture, something a ‘delight’ to have.

Sex with your Slave who is Betrothed to another

I will discuss adultery in greater detail below. For our purposes here the punishment for adultery is explicit and clear.

10 “If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. (Lev 20:10)

‘Death’. (Go straight to jail) The punishment for adultery is death. However the punishment for having sex with your slave who is betrothed to another man isn’t so clear cut.

20 “If a man lies sexually with a woman who is a slave, assigned to another man and not yet ransomed or given her freedom, a distinction shall be made. They shall not be put to death, because she was not free;

21 but he shall bring his compensation to the Lord, to the entrance of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering. 22 And the priest shall make atonement for him with the ram of the guilt offering before the Lord for his sin that he has committed, and he shall be forgiven for the sin that he has committed. (Lev 19.20-22)

‘Assigned to another man’. The text suggests the sex act happened in the betrothal stage (stage 1) of the marriage.

‘Slave’, ‘Not yet ransomed or given her freedom’. Change of ownership hasn’t been completed. The slave is still the property of the person who had sex with her. This creates a bit of a grey area. In one sense she is transitioning to become the property of her soon to be husband. But at this time she is still the property of her master. Which is why…

‘They shall not be put to death’. God intervenes to prevent the normal punishment. The punishment for adultery (which is a property rights issue for the betrothed husband) is alleviated because of the property rights her current master has over her. The text prescribes a guilt offering for the man instead of the death penalty.

‘Distinction’, ‘because she was not free’. The distinction made here between use of a betrothed slave for sex and simple adultery highlights that sex with their own slaves was a legal right for owners of those slaves. It was not considered a crime or a sin.

Second Temple Judaism

Recent studies (2015) on sexual ethics in Second Temple Judaism have demonstrated concubinage was tolerated by many Jews. Jennifer Glancy in her journal article ‘demonstrates that Hellenistic Jewish writers did not use the word porneia to refer to a man’s exploitation of slaves he owned. Moreover, while Jewish writers promoted conjugal sexuality, they were tolerant of extramarital sexual relationships between slaveholders and enslaved women. We have no evidence that Paul challenged that sexual norm.’ (Glancy, The Sexual Use of Slaves: A Response to Kyle Harper on Jewish and Christian Porneia)

Summary

Acceptance of concubinage seems to be sprinkled throughout the Old Testament (I’ve listed Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Samuel, Chronicles, Ecclesiastes). Multiple authors of scripture seem to accept it. There is no evidence it was condemned in the New Testament.

Concubinage, again like polygyny, to a degree comes under the umbrella principles of male headship and ownership we’ve seen in the Genesis account of sex and marriage. The woman has left the sphere of authority of her father and has come under the new headship of her master. I’ve also attempted to show from Abraham’s account, that children born to concubines were possibly understood to be fulfilling the creation mandate to multiply and fill the earth.

God’s very own actions were understood to affirm the practice. God affirms the obedience of His people who practice concubinage. God’s instructions in the law of Moses permit concubinage to continue and give concubines special rights. God gave multiple concubines to select kings. God alleviated the normal punishment for adultery because the woman was the man’s slave.

Since, Concubinage comes under the umbrella of the male heads property rights over the women in his household. I think having sex with a concubine was viewed in very similar ways to having sex with a wife. Both are understood by the Hebrew culture to be acceptable and good because they both come under the umbrella of male headship and ownership.

My contention is that according to God’s words and actions, what qualified a sexual relationship in Hebrew culture as good and acceptable was not a marriage covenant, rather their key boundary was male headship and ownership.

The male head of the household can generally do what he wants with the women he owns. Exempting his own daughters of course (incest), this includes having sex with them.

Conclusion

As we will see scripture does not explicitly condemn these practices and importantly, God the creator is implicated in their practice, sometimes facilitating the practices, sometimes portraying himself in polygamous relationships.

Consequently because of what God has done and instructed regarding polygyny and concubinage, my contention is that Genesis 2.24 was viewed as one description of a good sexual relationship among possible others and not prescriptive of the only sexual relationship deemed ‘good’.

Sex with another man’s Property

As before the concepts of property were part and parcel of household relationships in Hebrew society. Sexual ethics involve headship and property ownership to some degree. In this section I’ll discuss the ethics involved with sexual intercourse between a man his neighbours property. That is, his neighbours wives, concubines and virgin daughters.

Sex with another man’s Wife (Adultery)

One of the most well known set of commandments is the ten commandments. In it the Lord says;

18 “ ‘And you shall not commit adultery. (Dt 5.18)

Scriptures understanding of adultery reveals again how male oriented their sexual ethics were.

“Exodus 20:14 (WBC Vol. 3): The literal reference of the seventh commandment is shown by such passages as

(1) Lev 18:20; 20:10; and Deut 22:22 to have been sexual intercourse of a man with the wife of another man;

(2) Deut 22:23–27, sexual intercourse of a man with the fiancee of another man; and

(3) Hos 4:13; Ezek 16:32, sexual intercourse of a wife with a man, probably a married man (cf. זָרִים “strangers” of Ezek 16:32; and Humbert, RÉtSém 27 [1937] 49–64), other than her husband.” (p291, Durham, Word Biblical Commentary,  Exodus)

“How did the ancient Israelites understand adultery? Adultery is committed when and only when a married or betrothed woman is involved. A married or unmarried man who had sexual relations with an unmarried woman had not committed adultery.” (p423, Enns, NIVAC Exodus).

The marriage covenant reserves sex with the wife for her husband alone. Everyone else is prohibited from having sex with her. These are the sole conjugal rights (e.g. 1 Cor 7.3) of the husband.

Adultery is an offense committed against the husband in a marriage-covenant. It happens when another man has sex with the husband’s wife. Thereby making use of her in a way in which only the woman’s husband has the conjugal right to exercise.

Adultery doesn’t necessarily have to involve sex and we can see this in that the Lord’s two wives Israel and Judah, were accused of adultery with foreign gods (Jer 3.6-9; Eze 23.37). Here it has more to do with worship, ‘committing adultery with stone and tree’. The covenant gives the Lord rights over Israel. They are to worship him alone as their Lord and God (Ex 20.2-6; Dt 5.6-10). They didn’t have sexual intercourse with stone and tree. (This would take ‘tree hugging’ to a whole new level). The context concerns the covenant between the Lord and Israel. The Lord has ownership and property rights over Israel, yet Israel has turned away and worshipped other gods. What they did was wander away from the Lord and break their covenant relationship.

The key issue that makes adultery a sin in their mind was that it is a violation of the property rights the owner has over his property (his wives and possibly concubines and children) which comes under their covenant agreement.

Adultery is a clear contravention of God’s law. Both in the law of Moses and the new covenant (Dt 22.22; cf. Prov 6.29). Note in Deuteronomy 22, the woman is described as the property of ‘another man’. The punishment is death. The act and the offenders are called evil.

Likewise we see in Dt 22.23-24 the reference to ‘betrothed virgin’ who is ‘his neighbours wife’. In the first stage of marriage – betrothal, the groom has rights over his to be married wife. This brings this action on the same level as adultery. (Unless as noted above in concubinage (Lev 19.20-22), the betrothed virgin was the property of the man who slept with her.) Because the sex occurred ‘In the city’, in this case the woman is expected to fight and scream so people in hearing distance will come and rescue her. If she was not heard it’s assumed the sex was consensual, therefore she is implicated in the adultery. So she is killed as well. (Note, this is a horrible rule. We know now that rape victims can be paralysed with fear and cannot scream for help. There is no such thing as a perfect rape victim. This rule would kill innocent victims.)

Deuteronomy 22.25-27 describes what is to happen if the sex occurred ‘in the open country’. If the woman screams, no one will hear her. Here the case is decided in her favour. Only the man would be killed. The text says the man ‘seizes her’. What we are looking at here is an example of rape, which is equated with ‘attacking and murdering’ a neighbour.

In all these cases the ownership of the woman (‘wife of another man’, ‘neighbours wife’, ‘betrothed virgin’) is established and the punishment is death.

It’s slightly different for unbetrothed virgin daughters.

Sex with another man’s Concubine (Usurping)

Normally I would assume that sleeping with another man’s concubine would be adultery. To some extent it is. However there is more to it than that.

Having sex with another man’s concubine was generally recognised as a public claim to that man’s headship and authority by assuming control of his possessions.

The first recorded instance where a man slept with another man’s concubine is in Genesis 35.22. Nearing the end of his life, Jacob comments on Reuben and his actions (Gen 49.3-4). Being the firstborn, Reuben would normally have received a significant blessing when Israel was about to die. However, sleeping with his father’s concubine ruined it. He was really stupid. Preeminence was given to Judah. He defiled his father bed. Its notable, even before the law of Moses was given. Abrahams family recognised sexual acts can defile.

Then if we skip ahead to the time of the Kings, after Saul had died and David was yet to be established as king. We find Abner having sex with one of Saul’s concubines (2 Sam 3.6-8). Ish-bosheth was one of Saul’s sons. A rightful heir to his power. Abner was trying to assume Saul’s power and authority by sleeping with one of his concubines. Ish-bosheth calls him out on it.

Not long afterward, when Absalom took over the kingdom. David fled. When he did he left his concubines behind to look after his palace (2 Sam 15.16). Soon afterward Absalom publically had sex with David’s concubines (2 Sam 16.20-22). Absalom was instructed to ‘go in’ (have sex) with David’s concubines. We are told the reason would be to ‘make himself a stench’ to David. This will embolden the people who follow him against David. Absalom was after David’s power.

Near the end of David’s life, David was given a slave girl named Abishag as a concubine to keep him warm (1 Ki 1.1-4). During this time his sons Solomon and Adonijah (1 Ki 1.5-7) were vying for power. When Solomon was made king, David died and Adonijah wasn’t content with his subordinate position (1 Ki 2.13-25). Adonijah’s attempt to gain Abishag hor his wife was seen for what it was. A grab at the throne. Consequently he was killed.

It’s curious to note that in each of these cases, only concubines were involved, not wives. Why didn’t they have sex with their wives? Either way, it’s clear from the text in each case its seen as a grab for power.

Sex with another man’s Virgin Daughter (Loss of Virginity)

There are two main concepts associated with having sex with unmarried virgins;

• She is under her father’s ownership / authority, in his household (PROPERTY), and
• She has become defiled, the likelihood that someone will choose her for marriage will be severely diminished because the legitimacy of her future offspring will be questioned (PURITY)

The biblical instructions for how to deal with a person who has had sex with another man’s virgin daughter comes under the biblical category of restitution. A good example of some restitution laws are in Exodus 22.10-15 and we can see in this passage the use of ‘baal’ to indicate the owner of the life stock and property to whom restitution must be made.

The very next two verses of that same passage in Exodus 22 continue saying;

16 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins. (Ex 22.16-17)

The text captures an instance where the man is known. Not just the girl. The text highlights the unbetrothed virgin was under the authority of her father, not a husband. This is a key difference with adultery. The sexual intercourse was consensual. The sex act however has defiled the virgin. She would no longer be readily considered marriage material as any offspring she might have would have questionable offspring. Basically she is now damaged goods outside of marriage relationship.

There is a general push for people in this situation to get married.

Regardless of whether they get married, the man has to pay the bride price for marriage. These instructions differ from those in Dt 22.28-29. The woman doesn’t have to marry the man. She may remain with her father.

Note: The Deuteronomy case also differs in that it seems to cover an instance of rape (‘seizes her’). In its instructions, when the girl is raped, they have to get and stay married. Clearly this instruction runs rough shed over any feelings the girl might have. In Hebrew culture I suspect being defiled and left destitute with no chance of being married was considered worse than being married to your rapist. In one case at least this is what one victim wanted (2 Sam 13.11-19).

These are God’s instructions in the law of Moses (e.g. Ex 20.22; 21.1). Neither Ex 22.16-17 or Dt 22.28-29 require a sin offering. Which suggests having sex with another mans virgin daughter could be treated as a civil, not a criminal matter.

Restitution: ‘You break it, you buy it’

I think in some instances, not all, the biblical instructions for having sex with another man’s virgin daughter could be described under the concepts of ‘Damaged goods’ and ‘You break it you buy it’. We have already gone into the concept for ‘damaged goods’.

‘You break it you buy it’ is a policy held by some shop owners by which a retail store holds a customer responsible for damage done to merchandise on display. It generally encourages customers to be more careful when handling property that’s not theirs.

Sinful: Outrageous Thing

On the other hand the sex act is described in several places as an ‘outrageous thing, not done in Israel’.

11 But when she brought them near him to eat, he took hold of her and said to her, “Come, lie with me, my sister.” 12 She answered him, “No, my brother, do not violate me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not do this outrageous thing. (2 Sam 13.11-12)

The term ‘outrageous thing’ in particular highlights the act was considered a gross wrongdoing – sinful (cf. Gen 34.7; Jos 7.15; Jer 29.23). (Note in some cases it’s considered better than other wrongs. e.g. Jdg 19.24)

Similarly the term is used in the test for virginity (Dt 22.1). The instruction says she ought to be killed. Her behaviour is described as evil.

I suspect handling the loss of virginity was treated differently depending on whether the man owned up to it (Break it you buy it) or the girl was brave enough to share what happened to her (Rape, #MeToo) or the girl was attempting to conceal fornification (Prostitution).

The last two cases generally end in someone’s death (Gen 34.25-27; 2 Sam 14.28-29; Dt 22.21).

In the test for virginity the girl, who I assume was not forthright with what happened or what she was doing, is simply assumed to be a prostitute (cf. Gen 34.31). As before, key here to understanding why she would be killed is knowing that while in her father’s house she is under his headship / authority and bound to behave in certain ways because of their relationship. I think daughters were under a covenant obligation to honor their fathers who have authority over them (Ex 20.5). They were to do this by remaining pure, thus protecting their reputation and their right to the bride price.

Sexual Immorality in the OT

In this section I will seek to identify and list other sexual sins explicitly mentioned in the law of Moses. Most of these are prohibited in Leviticus 18.

Leviticus 18

For a bit of context, Moses is concerned that when the Israelites enter the promised land they will adopt the customs and beliefs of the nations they live around (Lev 18.1-5). The statement ‘if a person does them, he shall live by them’ (Lev 18.5) is set in the context of warning against foreign abominations and worship.

Leviticus 18.6-16 obviously comes under the category of incest, which is of course prohibited. Laws like these were necessary because the typical household in Israel may have included up to three or four generations.

Moses uses the expression ‘uncover the nakedness’ as a euphemism for sexual relations.

There is an odd expression ‘your fathers wife’, which I believe suggests either a second marriage or polygyny (Lev 18.8,11 ‘father’s wife’ is not called your mother; Lev 18.9 ‘Father’s daughter’, sister is not only defined as of the same father and mother).

Intercourse with a brother’s wife in some cases is commanded (Dt 25.5-10; cf. Gen 38.8-9). Having children with a brothers wife was only applicable when the brother had died and he had no heirs.

Leviticus 18.17-18 highlights the unusual nature of Jacob’s marriages with Rachel and Leah.

The next series of prohibitions are couched in purity language. Highlighting most of this is included in the purity – cleanliness section in the law of Moses.

As alluded to above, Leviticus 18.19 (cf. 20.18) reflects the understanding that bodily discharges were considered unclean. I can’t imagine the sex with a menstruating woman would be pleasant in any case. This particular prohibition continued to influence the early church beyond New Testament times.

Leviticus 18.20 is outright adultery (e.g. Ex 20.14; Dt 5.18). As discussed above, the offense is punishable by death. The punishment is not mentioned here, I believe because the prohibitions concern the purity laws.

Leviticus 18.21 refers to ‘Molech’. Some of the pagan religions of the time included the practice of sacrificing infants to the false god (cf. 2 Ki 3.27). Bear in mind, Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son Isaac to the Lord. The practice wasn’t necessarily uncommon.

22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. (Lev 18.22)

‘Lie with a male’, ‘Abomination’. Moses prohibits men having sex with one another (cf. Lev 20.13). The act couldn’t be described in more negative terms. Some scholars (e.g. Countryman) say the main problem described here is that one man is forced to adopt a feminine role (‘as with a woman’). However, the text in my opinion alludes to penetration. A man inserting his penis in another man’s rectum.

The text isn’t accompanied by a similar prohibition for female-female sexual relations. This is a reflection of a generally male centered view on sex in scripture. However both are associated with sin in the NT.

In Romans 1 God punishes Gentiles for idolatry by giving them up (Rom 1.24) into various other sins which ought not to be done (Rom 1.28), one of which is same sex intercourse (Rom 1.26-27).

Sin	Punishment
Gives them over	What ought not to be done
Idolatry	Gives them over	Same sex intercourse

The fact that God punishes idolators by giving them over into same sex intercourse doesn’t mean that this same sex intercourse is not a sin. Rather sin, which is intrinsically destructive, is its own punishment. It’s a both / and situation.

(Tangential to my main argument in this essay, I ought to note the LGBTQ community has been mistreated, condemned and some might say abused by the religious right for many years. Given scriptures condemnation of same sex intercourse, I feel this passage and others do not justify harmfully treating people who are made in the image of God with lesser dignity and love. It’s a difficult, complex and emotional issue and I believe great care and careful consideration needs to be taken.)

Leviticus 18.23 describes having sex with animals as a perversion. Having sex with animals is perverse. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to do that.

The summary statement in Leviticus 18.24-30 groups all these sexual practices under the banner of abominations. It says because of these ‘the land became unclean’. What we see here is how they understood sin and its effects upon creation. Sin leaves an unclean stain on the world, which must be carried away, removed and blotted out.

The people of Israel are warned again of the dangers in adopting these practices. The inhabitants of the land before them did so, they became unclean and were ‘vomited’ (Lev 18.25,28) out of the land because of it.

Summary

If one were to summarise the forbidden sex acts in the Old Testament the main one would be adultery it its various forms (sleeping with another man’s wife or concubine). The main issue here is the headship and property rights of the husband and in the case of his wives, his sole entitlement to sleep with them under the marriage covenant.

As discussed sleeping with a father’s virgin daughter could bring about swift retribution unless restituted quickly. In part this concerns the fathers property rights and entitlement to a bride-price. However, daughters caught having sex under their fathers household were generally deemed prostitutes, which maligned their fathers reputation.

Incest as we have seen above is of course prohibited. It was limited in close range to the immediate family and accounts for multiple wives. The prohibition marrying two close relatives is a bit of an odd case because Jacob married Rachel and Leah and the Lord depicting himself marrying two sisters Israel and Judah. We see this applies to polygyny as well.

Sex during menstruation is prohibited and is associated on a similar level of uncleanliness as other bodily discharges (excrement, possibly urine and monthly menstruation).

Male-male sex is described as an abomination. While it is not mentioned in the OT, female-female sex is prohibited as well in the New Testament. Sex with animals, likewise is a perversion and thus prohibited.

Sexual Immorality in the NT

My overarching view regarding New Testament sexual ethics is that old covenant sexual ethics, dealing with headship, property and purity are largely carried over into the new covenant and intensified.

Porneia

The Greek term πορνεία transliterated as porneia is hard to define, consequently there seem to be a few definitions of porneia in circulation. One of the oldest and most common is simple fornification, which means sex outside marriage. More detailed studies on sexual ethics in scripture tend to define porneia as sexual activity explicitly prohibited in the law of Moses. Which is why some bible translations (e.g. ESV) render porneia as ‘sexual immorality’, a broader expression highlighting there are different kinds of sexual immorality.

Purity

When we come to the issue of purity and sex we ought to note upfront that certain purity maps been abolished in the new covenant. The food laws in particular. This does not necessarily mean the laws depicting sexual immorality as impure are also abolished. The significant discussion relating to this is the one where Jesus has an argument with the Pharisees about washing which leads him to discuss what makes a person unclean.

18 And he said to them, “Then are you also without understanding? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile him, 19 since it enters not his heart but his stomach, and is expelled?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) 20 And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. 21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, porneia, theft, murder, adultery, 22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. 23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.” (Mk 7.18-23)

‘Defiles’, ‘clean’. The wider context of the discussion starts of discussing washings (Mk 7.3-5). It evolves into a discussion more broadly into what makes a person unclean.

‘From outside’, ‘Declared all foods clean’. Jesus makes a distinction between what is outside a person and what comes from the inside of a person. Regarding the outside, Jesus specifically has food in mind, and not everything, when the interpretive note from the author says, ‘Thus he declared all foods clean’. Paul will follow suit arguing in a few locations various foods are not defiling (e.g. Rom 14.14-23; 1 Tim 4.1-5).

‘From within’, ‘Porneia’. Regarding what comes from inside, from the heart, Jesus gives a whole list of thoughts, some of which lead more directly to sins of action, which defile a person. (This lends itself to Jesus intensification of the law of Moses as I will discuss below.) Notably in this context Jesus refers to ‘porneia’ – interpreted as sexual immorality and highlights thoughts and actions relating to sexual immorality are defiling.

Paul and John likewise continue to associate impurity with sexual immorality (1 Thes 4.3-8; Rev 14.4; 17.4). So what I have given above is a reasonable spread of NT teachers who associate impurity with sexual immorality.

Sex makes a person unclean, this is carried forward from the old covenant (Lev 15.18) into the new (Rev 14.2-5).

We have no reason to limit this to sexual immorality either, thought it is especially true there. Remember to differing degrees I have argued all sex is defiling. I also include sex under male headship and ownership as unclean as well. That is sex with wives or concubines.

David DeSilva in his excellent book on Honor, Patronage, Kinship and Purity (review) has done some research in purity maps in the NT with respect to sexual ethics. I disagree with DeSilva in that I think what qualified good and acceptable sex was male headship and ownership, not a marriage covenant (see the above arguments). This topic is not within the scope of his book. However I am in agreement relating to the carrying over of old covenant sexual purity ethics into the new.

“The early church did not, however, reject the concepts of purity, defilement and holiness. Such language continued to be a significant aspect of Christian teaching and ideology, and to function in ways familiar from the discussion of purity regulations in Israel.” …

“It may be no accident that several prominent classes of sin censured as defiling in the New Testament correspond closely with sources of defilement in Leviticus. First, the two codes share an emphasis on extramarital sexual intercourse as abomination (prohibited impurity) in God’s sight.”

“There continue to be regulations concerning sex and marriage with the Christian movement, as there had been in Israel and continued to be among Jews. There is to be no new intermarriage between the Christian community and the non-believing world (1 Cor 7:39); there is to be no fornication [sexual immorality], which is taken to characterize the “Gentile” (i.e., the non-Christian Gentile) world. Distinctiveness of sexual conduct and marital practice (which were elements of the Torah’s purity regulations) continue to reinforce the social boundary around the Christian group.” (p281, 296, 298, deSilva, Purity)

My main argument here is that sexual purity codes are largely carried over from the old to the new covenant.

Property

There are few passages in the New Testament which similarly imply property rights and ownership relating to sexual ethics are also carried over into the new covenant.

I note initially Jesus in the new covenant insisted being part of God’s family took priority over one’s own biological family (Mt 4.21-22; 8.22; 10.34-37; 19.29; Lk 9.60; 14.26). Relating to biological families He did however oppose divorce and adultery (Mt 5.27-28, 32; 15.19; Jn 8.3-4). Thus property rights has two dimensions, that pertaining to God’s household and earthly households.

God’s Household

Paul in 1 Corinthians as we have already seen, condemns sex with cultic prostitutes including it within his understanding of sexual immorality. Near the end of this passage he says;

18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body. (1 Cor 6.18-20)

‘You are not your own’, ‘bought with a price’. The imagery Paul is using here refers to the slave market. We have been ‘bought for a price’. The price was Christ’s death on the cross. Paul tells believers they now have God as their new owner and master and to him they owe service and loyalty. This ought to manifest itself in refusing to participate in sex with temple prostitutes (spiritual adultery). My point here is that in the New Testament sexual ethics still involves property rights.

Earthly Households

The primary manifestation of property rights and sex in earthly households is adultery.

3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; 4 that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, 5 not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. (1 Thes 4.3-6)

‘Transgress and wrong his brother’. Paul refers to sexual immorality more broadly, however I think he primarily has adultery in mind because it directly wrongs his brother [in Christ]. It’s probable Paul has sex with another Christian man’s wife in mind.

Likewise we see something similar in Hebrews.

4 Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous. (Heb 13.4)

‘Marriage bed’, ‘adultery’. Again its probable the author has one Christian having sex with another Christians wife in mind, which is adultery. The text explicitly refers to defilement, however adultery also involves taking what belongs to another for yourself.

OT Sexual Ethics Intensified

OT sexual ethics are carried over into the NT and intensified by Jesus.

17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Mt 5.17-20)

‘Fulfill’. Jesus come to fulfill the law and the prophets. He does this through his work, especially the cross which abolished the law (Eph 2.13-15), and through the Spirit, which enables believers to fulfil the law through love (Rom 8.4; 13.8-10; Gal 5.14).

‘These commandments’. In light of the abrogation of the law of Moses (Galatians?), Jesus refers to his own commanded expressed in the gospel (cf. Mt 28.18-20). Which are now introduced.

Just a little further Jesus says;

27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell. (Mt 5.27-30)

Three words in this passage need to be explained in order to make good sense of what Jesus is saying here. These words are: ‘Woman’, ‘Adultery’ and ‘Lust’.

‘Woman’. The Greek word is γυνή gunē; a prim. word; a woman:—bride(1), wife(71), wife’s(1), wives(11), woman(96), woman’s(1), women(33). As you can see the same word, ‘gunē’ like ‘ishshah’ in the Hebrew, is used for both woman and wife.

‘Adultery’. As mentioned before adultery is an offense committed against the husband of the woman. It happens when another man has sex with the husbands wife. Thereby making use of her in a way in which only the woman’s her husband has the conjugal right to exercise.

At the time, the people did not call a man (married or unmarried) sleeping with a single, unattached woman as adultery. If Jesus did intend to define adultery this way, he would have had to make it explicit because he would be redefining it against the common understanding. For example, in Mk 7 Jesus had to explicitly outline how he understood what makes a person unclean over and against the common understanding.

For this reason I’m inclined to think Jesus does not have looking with lustful intent at any and every woman in mind. Rather, only the wives of other men. I think the translators of the Greek γυνή (gunē) have wrongly used the English ‘woman’ over ‘wife’ in the passage, despite the immediate context referring repeatedly to adultery (associated with married people).

‘Lust’. The Greek word is ἐπιθυμέω epithumeō; desire, lust after:—covet(2), coveted(1), craved(1), desire(1), desired(2), desires(1), gladly(1), long(3), longing(1), lust(2), sets its desire(1). I think the idea expressed here goes beyond simple appreciation of beauty and attraction. Rather a strong desire to have that person for oneself. i.e. Coveting another person’s property.

I suppose Jesus is not saying its wrong to appreciate a woman’s beauty. If that were the case men wouldn’t be allowed to find their own wives attractive and desire them. Likewise I’d argue this is also part of the process in pursuing women in dating and courtship while seeking to be married.

But if the woman belongs to another man it’s quite different and sinfully dangerous. Strongly desiring and coveting another man’s wife is adultery.

Jesus’ command goes beyond the very act of taking another man’s wife for oneself. Taking for yourself what the woman’s husband alone has rights to. He extends it to a person’s thoughts as well. If we desire or even fantasize about having another man’s wife for ourselves, that is adultery.

Regarding the intensification of OT sexual ethics I’m inclined to extend this intensification to most forms of sexual immorality. Strong and continued desires for sexual immorality are sinful. I’ll run through my earlier summarised list after we work through 1 Corinthians 7.

1 Corinthians 7.1-5

As Fee (p268, Fee, G., NICNT, 1 Corinthians) helpfully observes, to better understand 1 Corinthinans 7 one needs to first see the structure of the passage as a whole. Fee breaks it down thus.

• vv.   1–7 to the married: stay married with full conjugal rights
• vv.   8–9 to the “unmarried” and widows: it is good to remain unmarried
• vv. 10–11 to the married (both partners believers): remain married
• vv. 12–16 to those with an unbelieving spouse: remain married
• vv. 25–38 to “virgins”: it is good to remain unmarried

vv. 39–40 to married women (and widows): the married are bound to the marriage; when widowed it is good to remain that way. (Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 268).

The three main themes directing Paul’s thought seem to be

1. The presence of sexual immorality (esp. cultic prostitution 1 Cor 6.12-20) in their city,
2. The second coming Christ and His future judgment (they are to seek to please God in light of his coming judgment), and given this
3. Acceptable outlets for sexual desire (Paul refers to their lack of self control and burning with passion)

7 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with [lit. touch] a woman.”

2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. (1 Cor 7.1-5)

It is rightfully argued by Fee (NICNT) and Blomberg (NIVAC) that Paul in this passage is addressing married men who are going into cultic prostitutes. They say;

‘This unusual plural [sexual immoralities] has been variously understood, usually as reflecting the enormity of this evil in Corinth itself, and also as implying fornication (“illicit sexual relations between unmarried persons”). The word can certainly denote the latter, but in the immediately preceding paragraph it refers specifically to cases of [cultic] prostitution. Since the similar phrase in 7:5, “because of your lack of self-control,” speaks to those who are already married, it is arguable that because some husbands are being deprived of sexual relations (v. 5a), they are going to the prostitutes.’ (NICNT, 1 Cor)

‘Sexual abstinence is, for the most part, inappropriate for wedded couples. To “have” a spouse probably does not mean to “acquire” one but to “engage in sexual relations.” “Each man” and “each woman” must then refer to “each married person.” With prostitutes and mistresses abundantly available (recall 6:12–20), Corinthian men unable to have sex with their wives would often look elsewhere.’ (NIVAC, 1 Cor)

Occasionally proponents of the traditional view of sexual ethics will use this passage to define sexual immorality (porneia) to mean any sexual relationship outside marriage. Jensen for example says;

“It is to be noted that marriage and porneia are here posed as alternatives, with no acceptable middle ground, which would not be the case if fornification were not included in porneia.” (p182, Jensen, A., A critique of Bruce Malina)

Jensen agenda regarding fornification is tangential to Paul’s concern and an argument from silence. Paul is not attempting to define sexual immorality, he assumes his audience already knows what it is. Rather he is giving one acceptable outlet for men’s sexual desires in order to prevent them from going into prostitutes.

Jensen’s argument speaks directly into the issue of whether concubinage was considered good and acceptable. I disagree with Jensen. It could be true, but it’s not necessarily true. Paul is addressing married men and women. He knew they were married. He probably didn’t know if they had slaves (concubines) or not. Consequently, I think he would mention what they obviously had (marriage partners) and not feel he had to list what they might not have – slaves as concubines.

Summary

If one were to summarise the forbidden sex acts in the New Testament I would start with the Old Testament forbidden sex acts and consider them carried over and intensified by Jesus in the New. Both prostitution and adultery (sleeping with another man’s wife or concubine) would be the main ones.

Regarding adultery the primary issue here is the property rights of the husband and in the case of his wives, his sole right to have sex with them under the marriage covenant.

I see no reason to deny sleeping with a father’s virgin daughter was viewed any differently. The purity maps remain. Thus the act it could bring about swift retribution unless restituted quickly. Daughters caught having sex under their fathers household were generally deemed prostitutes, which maligned their fathers reputation.

I have every reason to assume incest remains prohibited. Polygyny I suspect was quite rare in New Testament times.

Sex during menstruation is a tricky one. Yes it is related to sex, however the law of Moses has been abrogated by Christ and the Spirit. I tend to lean towards it being a private matter and probably tolerated by Gentile Christians.

Same sex intercourse continues to attract condemnation in the New Testament (Rom 1.26-27; 1 Cor 6.9; 1 Tim 1.10 ‘arsenokoitai’). I assume sex with animals, likewise continues to be understood as a perversion and thus prohibited.

---

Copyright © Joshua Washington and thescripturesays, 2018. All Rights Reserved.