Sexual sins and crimes are big concerns in society and in the church. Cultures of the world have differing standards of morality/immorality. Here we’ll look at sexual immorality from God’s word.
At creation, the first command God gave to man/ánthropos (Greek LXX) was about reproduction. Ge.1:28 “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.” Human reproduction was a creation mandate! God subsequently set guidelines which are recorded in His word to identify moral versus immoral.
Types of immorality or lewdness and harlotry are identified in Le.20:10-22, 5-6. A similar listing of sexual sins is found in Le.18:5-24. Without understanding what actions constitute immorality based on Christ the Lord’s commands to Moses/Israel, a person wouldn’t know all that is sexual sin in God’s eyes! Sexual sin includes: adultery, incest, homosexuality/lesbianism, transvestism, beastiality, menstrual sex, idolatrous prostitution. Without learning these foundational scriptures, knowledge of sexual sin may just be based on or skewed by the customs & traditions of our nation or church.
From Le.20: Sexual immorality with a married or betrothed woman (v.10) is adultery…with a near relative (v.11) is incest; 1Co.5:1 “It is reported that there is immorality [pornéia] among you, someone has his father’s wife”. Intercourse with a person of the same sex (Ro.1:26-27, Le.20:13, De.22:5) is homosexuality or lesbianism…with an animal (v.15-16) is beastiality…with a menstruating woman (v.18) is uncleanness…with a harlot/prostitute to a pagan god (v.5-6) for pay or barter is idolatry. As we see from reading Le.20, Christ prescribed serious penalties for those who committed such acts!
From Le.18: v.20 adultery “Do not lie sexually with your neighbor’s wife.” v.6–ff incest “None of you shall have sexual relations with a close blood relative.” v.22 homosexual intercourse “You shall not lie with a male, as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.” v.23 beastiality “You shall not have intercourse with any animal, to be defiled with it; nor shall a woman offer herself to an animal.” v.19 menstrual sex “Do not have intercourse with a woman during her menstrual impurity.” Ex.34:16 religious prostitution “They will seduce your sons and daughters to whore after their gods.”
There are many other scriptures which add detail and amplify the above passages. e.g. Re.18:2-4 of Babylon the religious harlot. “All nations have drunk of her immorality [pornéia Strongs g4202, Greek], and the kings of the earth have committed acts of immorality with her. Come out of her My people.”
In the LXX/Septúagint the Greek term for idolatrous (and adulterous) harlotry was “porneia” (g4202). The term was rare in classical Greek, but occurs often in the LXX and the New Testament (NT) koiné Greek. During the intertestamental period, the meaning of porneia expanded to include other sexual sins too. In the NT, porneia had come to mean sexual sin in general.
Some rabbis also believed ‘unnatural forms of intercourse’ are immoral, anal & oral sex. Humans are unclean to eat (cannibalism is wrong, even when there’s no killing. cf. Ezk.4:12-15, Is.36:12, De.23:13.)
To avoid confusion, I’ll rarely use the word “fornication”, from older English translations. There is no ancient Greek term for “fornication”. It came into English from two Latin words associated with brothels. Since the meaning of this word has changed over the centuries, the term is a misnomer. Rev. Bill McGinnis “Fornication’ is not really a very good translation for the word ‘porneia.”
Testaments of the XII Patriarchs, Test. Benj.9:1 “You will commit porneia with the porneia of Sodom.” Homosexual intercourse and sex with a different kind/“strange flesh” are also forms of porneia and sin. Jude 7 “Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in gross immorality [ekporneúo, cf. Le.17:7 LXX], going after strange flesh.” ref Ge.19:1-5 Sodom. Transvestism too is wrong. De.22:5 “A woman must not wear that which pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on women’s clothing; anyone doing these is an abomination to the Lord your God.” Pulpit Commentary “The divinely instituted distinction between the sexes was to be sacredly observed.”
The meaning of adultery in Christ’s theocracy of ancient Israel, as well as in most of the ancient world, differed from the meaning of adultery in modern western nations today. Christ was the God/Rock of Israel. In ancient Israel, adultery is…sexual activity between a married (or betrothed) woman and a man not her husband. The man’s marital status isn’t a factor. So by definition, it was impossible for a widow, divorcee, or otherwise single woman to commit adultery (unless she was betrothed)! And it was impossible for a man to commit adultery with an unmarried or unengaged woman!
Biblical Archaeology Society: Understanding Israel’s 10 Commandments “You will not commit adultery.’ In our world, adultery is defined as sexual relations with someone who is not your spouse. The Biblical understanding of adultery, however, is gender-specific. In the ancient world, a married man could engage in sexual relations with [his] wives & concubines, and prostitutes; a married woman could only have sex with her husband. Thus, committing adultery for a man consisted of sleeping with a woman who was someone else’s wife; for a [married] woman, adultery was sex with someone other than her husband. The same law and definition is ubiquitous throughout the ancient world.”
Christ told Moses/Israel the adultery penalty was death. (even Jn.8:7 “Let him throw the first stone.”) De.22:22-27 shows that the adultery law applied to betrothed women too. If the adultery was by mutual consent, both the man and woman were guilty. If he’d raped her, only the man was guilty.
But God’s meaning of adultery was altered over the centuries. It was altered in Greco-Roman society too, differing from Christ’s meaning in His older theocracy. Jesus and Paul lived in the Roman Empire, where the laws of Christ’s theocracy weren’t enacted. Yes, Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever (He.13:8). He knew what adultery is and what it isn’t. But Jesus wasn’t the Roman ruler. Although the inferior laws of men/heathens don’t change God or God’s morality, it wasn’t wrong to avoid Roman legal action, while not disobeying God. But some laws & customs of Rome became part of early Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church, etc., and filtered down into Christian belief today.
For example, Ge.29:30, Ge.30:4, 9, the man Jacob/Israel isn’t an adulterer (he had four wives simultaneously)! Ex.21:10 “If a man takes another wife, he must not diminish the food, clothing, or conjugal dues of the first wife.” De.21:15 “A man might have two wives and love one but not the other, and they have borne him sons.” 1Sm.1:1-2 is about Elkanáh the father of Samuel. “He had two wives, one named Hannáh and the other Peninnáh.” 1Sm.25:42-43 “Abigail followed the messengers of David, and became his wife. David had also taken Ahinóam, and they both became his wives.” Those marriages weren’t adultery in Christ’s theocracy. Pagan Greece & Rome enjoined serial monogamy on their societies long before Christianity began. These scriptures seem so strange to our modern western minds!
Yet God’s word is authoritative! Jesus and Paul both said several times, “It is written”. However, also ref Is.4:1 (which relates to Ex.21:10), and Jg.8:30 & SSol.6:8 for exorbitance. Although a few Israelites were excessive, overindulging in this matter of plural wives…that doesn’t mean Christ erred in the commands & guidelines He gave to Moses/Israel regarding this marital option. Jesus Christ is Lord!
It would be too lengthy to examine details of: the marital excess of Solomon (e.g. De.17:16-17), examples of concubinage in the Bible, lévirate marriage, and marital defilement. Those matters relate to morality/immorality, but are beyond the scope here. (see the topic “Polygyny – Lawful in God’s Eyes?”.) And based upon the marriage customs in most (western) nations, it seems that only rarely would it be advised for a man to have plural wives today.
In ancient Israel, a young daughter belonged to her father or protector prior to her marriage.
Her father would eventually be paid the bride-price from the bridegroom. Le.19:29 “Don’t profane your daughter by making her a harlot, so that the Land may not fall into harlotry and lewdness.” Many commentaries relate this command to the practice of heathens, whose custom was to fund the daughter’s dowry with earnings from idolatrous prostitution. A father wasn’t to degrade his daughter by making her a common prostitute, lest secular harlotry become the norm in the Land instead of marriage/family.
De.23:17-18 “None of the daughters or sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord, both of these are an abomination.” God wouldn’t accept the offerings of religious prostitutes. A “dog” in this context was the sodomite whose position for homosexual intercourse resembled a dog’s. ref Re.22:15. (The label of ‘dog’ also became an epithet against gentiles.) 2Ki.23:7 King Josiah “broke down the houses of the male cult prostitutes.” It seems that quarters in the temple precinct even housed sodomites in those days! Le.21:9 “The daughter of any priest who profanes herself by harlotry profanes her father.” Her prostitution at the sanctuary reflected on her father. Le.21:7, 14 also priests weren’t to marry a profane woman. Ancient Israel’s worship of Christ the Lord wasn’t to be a fertility cult…no religious sex!
A virgin living under her father’s roof was to remain chaste, else De.22:13-21 could later apply (I won’t quote the passage here). But people in love may not always follow the usual or customary channels. Christ made allowances for them too. Ex.22:16-17 “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed, has sexual relations with her, he must pay the bride-price and marry her. If her father refuses to give her to him, he still must pay the bride-price for virgins.” The man was then to marry the girl. This wasn’t casual sex, it was another way (not the usual way) of obtaining a wife. But if her father refused to let them marry, this non-virgin daughter would bring her father a lower bride-price in the future. So taking a daughter’s virginity could also be a form of theft from her father too. (And possibly there could be serious De.22:13-21 repercussions, if deceit is subsequently involved.)
Yet scripture is mostly quiet in regards to sexual relations with the unmarried non-virgin (not a harlot) with no protector, who’s not living under her father’s roof. In Christ’s theocracy, it appears that intimacy with divorcees, widows, orphan women (not priests’ daughters) generally isn’t barred by scripture. For example, Ru.3:7 Ruth the goodly widow lay down secretly in Bóaz’ bed one night. The text gives no indication that Ruth’s action was sin. And after spending the night with Ruth, Boaz didn’t rest until he’d obtained her the next day (Ru.3:18–4:10)!
In some cultures, economic conditions are such that an unmarried woman (e.g. divorcee, widow) with no protector/provider…could become destitute! God didn’t outlaw commercial prostitution in Israel.
Again, a virgin living under her father’s roof must be chaste, else De.22:13-21 could apply. But for a single non-virgin (not a temple harlot), who solicited her favors to obtain income (perhaps to avoid starvation)…Christ didn’t require strict punishment for her or her clients, and not even a blood sacrifice for sin! It seems that wasn’t ‘sin’ or iniquity in God’s theocracy. This may seem strange to western society. Fathers were forbidden to prostitute their daughters (Le.19:29), but otherwise single women away from home weren’t prohibited from prostituting themselves, selling their body possibly to survive.
Other than Jesus Christ, King Solomon is called the wisest man who ever lived. 1Ki.4:29-34 “God gave Solomon wisdom and very great discernment and breadth of mind.” God said to Solomon in 1Ki.3:12, “I have given you a wise and discerning heart, there has been none like you”. Four verses later is the famous story of the two harlots who as ‘plaintiffs’ came to Solomon to settle their dispute. 1Ki.3:16-28 the king received even harlots, and rendered his wise decision. He didn’t have them arrested for prostitution! There was no animal sacrifice offered for any ‘sin’. (Yet ironically, Solomon himself acted unwisely when he was older; his heathen wives turned his heart to pagan gods, 1Ki.11:1-10.)
Samson was an Israelite judge in whom the Spirit of God worked mightily with superhuman strength! Jg.16:1 “Samson went to Gaza and saw a harlot there.” Samson, a single man, had relations with a harlot. v.4 “After this he loved a woman in the valley of Sorék whose name was Deliláh.” It is thought that Sorek was not far from Samson’s home town of Zoráh (in the tribe of Dan, Jg.13:2). Samson loved Delilah. Josephus Antiquities of the Jews 5:8:11 said Delilah was a harlot among the Philistines who Samson lived with. Jg.16:12 “Delilah took new ropes and bound him. Then Delilah said, ‘The Philistines be upon you Samson.’ But he snapped the ropes from his arms like they were threads.” God is still with Samson, even after he visited a harlot (v.1) and had relations with Delilah! Those acts weren’t sin that separated Samson from God. Sleeping with harlots didn’t violate Samson’s Nazarite vow! Jg.16:19-20 God leaves Samson only after his hair is cut, in violation of the vow (Jg.13:5, Nu.6:1-5). Perhaps we think Christ should have left Samson earlier when he had relations with those women? But we’re not God.
In Jsh.2:1-3, the two faithful Israelite spies wanted to stay with the harlot Raháb! v.13 she’s unmarried. (A married harlot is an adulteress.) God didn’t rebuke either the spies or Rahab. In Ja.2:25, Jesus’ relative James indicated that this gentile harlot Rahab was justified by her works. He.11:31 Rahab is in God’s Who’s Who! Mt.1:5 and her descendant Boaz (cf. Ru.4:18-22) is an ancestor of Jesus Christ.
In Ge.38, Judah was a single man whose wife had died. He was one of Jacob’s sons and patriarch of the Jewish people. v.11-19 Judah had sex with a woman who looked like a prostitute. He didn’t know she was his disguised daughter-in-law, whose betrothal to Sheláh his son should have already resulted in marriage. So she tricked Judah for procrastinating. v.24 death was the penalty for a betrothed woman who has sex with another man. The narrative is involved. The point here…God didn’t rebuke Judah for having sex with a supposed prostitute. And the son she conceived by Judah is an ancestor of Jesus.
There are those who might say that Boaz, Samson (before his haircut), the two faithful spies, the patriarch Judah…have ‘fallen from grace’, so to speak…if their above behavior was done today. But that’s not what the scriptures indicate. In recent decades, many churchmen have been maligned and accused of sexual sin/miscues, when their behavior may not have been sin according to scripture (unlike our customary beliefs in most modern nations)! In the NT, Christ didn’t change His morality for Rome.
There are men & women who love each other but don’t have a government-issued marriage license, for whatever reason. (Whether marriage should be authorized by the state, the church, the families, private contract…is debatable.)
God didn’t forbid non-incestuous responsible sexual relations between a man and an (independent) unmarried/unbetrothed woman, with mutual consent. It wasn’t punished.
A pastor and his wife had raised several successful grown children. She’d done her part, and was tired from childbearing. (As Greta Garbo said in the old movie, “I vant to be alone.”) Pastor provides for her & respects her wishes to abstain. But he is still a man (with testosterone God created within us). Pastor then fell in love with a younger single woman. He now loved two women. Christians were stunned. This is heartrending…but the church/society doesn’t follow the relevant guidelines Christ gave Moses/Israel!
Maybe we too have judged others rigidly or unjustly for their supposed sexual indiscretions, based upon traditional societal or church beliefs…not the word of God. God isn’t a prude. Or perhaps we’ve had difficulty forgiving ourselves for our having committed (years ago or recently) what we’d been taught to believe was sexual sin…and it wasn’t really ‘sin’ after all in God’s eyes!
Greco-Roman society and later tradition has altered what sexual immorality is/isn’t, and the meaning of “fornication”. Religious sex, eroticism, homosexuality, pederásty was widespread in the Roman Empire. Regardless…marriage is best, if possible (e.g. 1Co.7:2, 6 as Paul suggested).
Secular prostitution in ancient Israel wasn’t sin as we might think it, for a single woman not dependent on her father. But there are often grave consequences to that lifestyle!
A harlot who doesn’t take needed precautions may end up destroying “the temple of God” (1Co.3:16-17) with disease…her own body and/or that of her clients. That isn’t loving her neighbor or herself; opposing the will of God.
There’s more to this broad topic of sexual immorality. “Sexual Sins, Harlotry, Rape – (2)” concludes it.
Bible Topic Exposition 