INTERCOURSE PROHIBITIONS
REGULATIONS CONCERNING CHOICE OF MATE
MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS
The proper conduct of human sexuality is quite possibly the most controversial moral topic both within and outside visible Christendom. Other theological and political debates generate great passion and feature ad hominem attacks, but few arguments carry the potency of labeling one's opponent a sex pervert. Some modern "sex crimes" merit longer prison sentences than murder, including acts which were not even controversial, much less illegal, just a few decades ago. An atmosphere of hysteria effectively precludes serious discussion of the subject. If indeed modern society or Christendom is mistaken about any aspect of sexuality, reform has thereby been rendered all but impossible.
Most Christians nevertheless declare the Scriptures to be the supreme source of moral ideas. Specifically, the first five books of the Bible are held to contain the most comprehensive discussions of God's plan for human behavior. The following study takes these two assumptions seriously in an attempt to recover God's original guidelines for the pursuit of physical intimacy. The result is an alternative to libertine "playboy philosophies," which affirm behavior that is genuinely harmful to people, as well as repressive "puritan" systems masquerading as "traditional Judeo-Christian morality," which prohibit behavior that is harmful to no one.
The early chapters of Genesis describe how God created humans as male and female (1:27) and made it possible for them to experience intimate fellowship (proskollaó, "to stick to," 2:24, from kollaó, "to join," which can describe church fellowship, as in Acts 9:26). This relationship is followed by the participants becoming "one flesh" (sarka mian), which occurs literally in procreation, when the physical essence of man and woman unite at the cellular level. Such unity in diversity of the human race is an aspect of the image and likeness of God, whose identity includes unity in Trinity (1:26; 3:22). After Adam and Eve's rebellion, the Lord said that their relationship would be characterized by the woman finding refuge (apostrophé, 3:16b, also "recourse") in her husband. The latter was a mitigation of the effects of sin rather than an extension of them, for the intended result, that the husband would be the lord (kurieuó) of the woman, was patterned after God's own gracious lordship.
Several basic principles of sexuality may be deduced from Genesis 2, such as the priority of heterosexual relationships over other personal bonds, and the ongoing nature of sexual union. However, not every biblical sexual regulation can be inferred from this material. Furthermore, there is no basis to regard whatever is not specifically affirmed in this verse as contrary to God's will. This presumption is responsible for a number of negative ecclesiastical judgments regarding behavior which the Scriptures nowhere condemn.
The denigration of sexuality as intrinsically contrary to spirituality is quite possibly the longest standing unchallenged error in Christendom. Jerome (A.D. 345-420) wrote, "The truth is that, in view of the purity of the body of Christ, all sexual intercourse is unclean," and, "A layman, or any believer, cannot pray unless he abstain from sexual intercourse" (Against Jovinianus, bk. I, secs. 20 and 34). From these assumptions he concluded that procreation was the only legitimate purpose of sexuality, and that a clergyman must be celibate ("if he must always pray, he must always be released from the duties of marriage"). Augustine (A.D. 354-430) claimed that the celibate achieve a higher state of eternal bliss than other Christians (Of Holy Virginity, secs. 27-29). Roman Catholicism's understanding of sexual morality, ministry, and eschatology is overtly based on such presuppositions.
Although Protestantism remains critical of Roman Catholicism in general, and has reacted negatively to permanent celibacy as a requirement for ecclesiastical service, there is no evidence that it has critically examined Rome's other sexual teachings which similarly result from a disparagement of bodily (frequently mislabeled "fleshly" or "carnal") activities. Such disparagement is hardly peculiar to Christianity. Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, ancient Greek philosophies, and their modern derivatives all assume that the physical creation as such is a major barrier between the human and the divine. In such systems, a "religious" life is one which devalues various bodily activities (sex, food, possessions) in favor of complex devotional exercises, and "salvation" is achieved when the individual finally escapes all physical circumstances in a dematerialized afterlife.
The goal of genuine Christianity is to enhance the enjoyment of all aspects of God's creation, including sexuality. As a result, negative prohibitions need to be seen not as deprivations of pleasure, but as protections against that which ultimately deprives of pleasure. Whenever a passage states that something has been forbidden, Christians should immediately ask, "What then is being permitted?"
The Scriptures repeatedly condemn prostitutes of both genders, as well as their clients. The first recorded incident of prostitution (porneia), involving Judah's daughter-in-law Tamar (Gen. 38:14-26), establishes the classic definition: intercourse in return for a payment of material goods, punishable by death (38:24). Additional prohibitions existed against cult prostitution (Ex. 34:15-16), parents coercing daughters into prostitution (Lev. 19:29), and prostitution by a priest's daughter (Lev. 21:9). The death penalty was required in the latter case, and Israelites in general were executed for cult prostitution with Moabites and Midianites (Num. 25:1-18). The descendants of a prostitute were banned from the Lord's assembly through the tenth generation (Deut. 23:2), and the wages of male as well as female prostitutes could not be received as offerings (Deut. 23:17-18). The prohibition against the sons of Aaron taking prostitutes as wives (Lev. 21:7) implies that such women were not always executed.
In Deut. 22:13-21, a unique form of prostitution involved "virgins." When a husband asserted that he did not find "the evidences of virginity" (ta parthenia) in his new wife, the girl's parents were expected to produce a garment (imation) as proof to the contrary. This has commonly been assumed to be bedding where the first intercourse was performed, stained by bleeding when the bride's hymen was ruptured. This interpretation ignores the fact that such bleeding does not always occur, requires an unsubstantiated definition of imation, and cannot explain how the bride's parents would come into possession of it. More importantly, it assumes that a virgin (parthenos) is a sexually inexperienced individual, whereas no consistent evidence provided by parents, much less a garment, could substantiate this. Scripture never applies the term "virgin" to adult women, regardless of sexual history, or to males of any age (Rev. 14:4 is not an exception; there parthenos is employed as a symbol of an orthodox congregation, as in 2 Cor. 11:2), and the Bible knows nothing of "losing" one's virginity by means of intercourse. Secular Greek sometimes refers to a "virgin wife" (guné parthenos), and employs the masculine form of the adjective "virginal" to mean the son of an unmarried girl. Thus two of the oldest manuscripts of 1 Cor. 7:34 (Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus) speak of "the wife who is unmarried and the virgin who is unmarried" (agamos, explained below under Celibacy) in contrast to "the female who is married."
Hebrew employs two different words rendered "virgin." Outside of Isaiah's famous prophecy, ‘almah rarely occurs, and never in sexual commands. "The virgin will be pregnant and will give birth to a son" (Is. 7:14b, quoted in Matt. 1:23) must refer to a birth at that time, not merely to Jesus' birth seven centuries later, otherwise no "sign" was being given to Ahaz that he would be victorious over the armies of Samaria and Damascus (Is. 7:1-14a). This sign was fulfilled when a son was born to a "prophetess" in the next chapter (8:3-4). Since this was preceded by Isaiah "approaching" (for sexual activity, as in Deut. 22:14) the prophetess, hers was not a "virgin" birth in the conventional sense. The only circumstance in which this event could have been a miraculous "sign" is for the prophetess to have been a prepubescent girl, incapable of normal conception regardless of any sexual relationship. By contrast, the more common word bethuwlah often appears in commands involving betrothal, and its rare cognate bethuwliym is rendered by the aforementioned parthenia, "evidences of virginity," in Deut. 22:14-15. A son of Aaron was required to "take a virgin from his race as a wife" (Lev. 21:13), the Hebrew text of which reads, "He will take a wife with the evidences of her virginity." This suggests that the latter actually refers to postpubescence, the sexual maturity required to be a spouse and a mother. The unusual "test" of Deut. 22 would then provide confirmation of that status, as proven by garments stained by menstrual blood. Parents who misrepresented their daughter as sexually mature would be accused of prostitution because they would thereby be attempting to acquire the special dowry for virgins (Ex. 22:17, defined in Deut. 22:29 as fifty didrachma, that is, fifty times the temple tax of Matt. 17:24) to which they were not in fact entitled.
The foregoing illustrates that prostitution in the Scriptures is somewhat broader than the modern English term. A woman who engages in a "one night stand" in return for dinner or gifts, or in order to secure employment, is a porné for the same reason as Tamar; that she does not receive payment in cash, or does so rarely as opposed to "professionally," is beside the point. The reason why prostitution is so severely condemned is not because it involves sex, but because it involves coercion; indeed, it is the female version of rape. In the latter, a man achieves a sexual goal by some non-sexual coercion (e.g. threats of bodily harm or dismissal from employment); in prostitution, a woman achieves a non-sexual goal (e.g. money or employment; see Hos. 2:5) by some sexual enticement. The proof of prostitution is what happens after the sexual encounter; the prostitute, having achieved her non-sexual goal, or becoming convinced that she will never achieve it, abandons any further sexual relationship. As a result, it is possible to be "legally married" and still be a prostitute, if the woman uses marriage to secure wealth or status, but subsequently refuses her husband's sexual advances. A man who co-operates with any form of prostitution is thus sinning against himself (1 Cor. 6:18); he pays for what he ought to get for free, and is deprived of anything further once the payment is made.
By contrast, freewill sexual relationships, commonly denounced in modern times as "living together out of wedlock" or "shacking up," are never rebuked in Scripture. Such unions are not rightly accused of "fornication," a word which was originally a synonym for prostitution (from the Latin fornix, an "archway" where prostitutes solicited clients in ancient cities). In the Mosaic law, a man who was sexually involved with an unbetrothed virgin was, upon detection, simply required to pay to the girl's father the aforementioned dowry normally given to all virgins. The father then had the option of either declaring them united or precluding any further relationship (Ex. 22:16-17; Deut. 22:28-29). The latter texts demonstrate that it was the bride's family, not the church or the state, which "married" a couple (see also the case of Rebekah, Gen. 24:50-59), and this solely due to custom, not divine command. A gamos was neither a judicial nor an ecclesiastical ritual, but a reception hosted by the bride's father to announce the union (Gen. 29:22; John 2:1). As a result, a couple which has parental permission enjoys every divine sanction and blessing, even if they have not pursued a marriage license or church ritual. A couple which bypasses parental permission may be violating the fourth commandment, but not the sixth. When such permission is not required by the parents, only the mutual consent of man and woman is required by God. This agrees with a long standing principle of Protestant theology and secular law, consensus facit nuptias ("consent creates a marriage"), which derives from a decree of Pope Nicholas I (Epist. 99, written to the Khan of Bulgaria in AD 866).
The modern notion of "marriage" is based not on Scripture, but on the "sacrament of matrimony" devised by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, in which it is alleged that a clergyman's pronouncement establishes the marital union. Protestantism universally retains this practice while avoiding the term "sacrament" in describing it. "Marriage" by a justice of the peace or a ship's captain is simply the secular version of this institution. As a result, most modern Christian statements regarding "marriage" (e.g. "Sex should be reserved for marriage") are called into question.
The noun gamos, which can describe a banquet unrelated to the union of a bride and groom (Esther 1:5), never refers to sexuality or the ongoing marital estate. The latter is called sunoikésis ("cohabitation," Tob. 7:14 v.l.), derived from sunoikeó ("to live together," Gen. 20:3; Deut. 22:22), which terms never have the negative connotations conveyed by their modern English translations. "The gamos is honorable in all respects" (Heb. 13:4a) commends neither modern "marriage" ceremonies nor the couple's subsequent relationship, but the customs associated with the wedding reception, which otherwise might be condemned as too "carnal" (such as the liberal use of alcoholic beverages, John 2:10). That believers "in the resurrection neither marry nor are given in marriage" (Matt. 22:30), far from abolishing sexuality and reproduction in the next life, looks forward to a time when parental decisions (and thus also the improperly derived judicial and ecclesiastical procedures) are no longer required as prerequisite to sexual experiences.
God joins man and woman together (Matt. 19:6b) not by a parental gamos, much less by the rites of church or state, but by making them "one flesh" (Matt. 19:6a) on the basis of their mutual consent (Matt. 18:19). Even brief sexual encounters result in the participants becoming "one body" (1 Cor. 6:16a), which can also result in becoming "one flesh" (1 Cor. 6:16b). This is parallel to Genesis 2:24 and the patriarchal narratives; a woman is joined to a man and becomes "his woman" by human consent (as by Rebekah, Gen. 24:58), and she subsequently becomes pregnant by divine intervention (as for Eve, Gen. 4:1; Sarah, Gen. 17:16; Rebekah, Gen. 25:11). A "marriage" in the modern legal sense is thus unnecessary, but hardly sinful. It remains the best way to provide for the welfare of any children involved, and to safeguard the inheritance rights of various parties. On the other hand, persons incapable of procreation properly forego the legal institution, especially when it results in the loss of rights, as when "senior citizens" by remarriage would have to forfeit retirement benefits secured by their deceased spouses.
The cognates of the term employed in the sixth commandment (moicheuó, Ex. 20:14; Deut. 5:18) do not occur nearly as frequently as the porneia word group. Adultery was defined as intercourse between a man and someone else's wife (Lev. 18:20), with the consent of both (Deut. 22:22-24), punishable by the death of both (Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22). Intercourse with a female slave designated for, but not yet taken by, another man was also considered sinful, but the penalty was simply the offering of a sacrifice (Lev. 19:20).
God rebuked the impending adultery between the Pharaoh and Sarah (Gen. 12:17) and between Abimelech and Sarah (Gen. 20:3). Abimelech himself warned against adultery with Rebekah (Gen. 26:10-11). Reuben was condemned for intercourse with Bilhah, one of Jacob's concubines (pallaké, Gen. 35:22; see also 49:4), who is elsewhere called his wife (guné, 30:4). Joseph refused intercourse with Potiphar's wife (Gen. 39:6b-18).
Another unusual "test" appears in Numbers 5:11-31, in this case for a woman suspected of adultery. The priest made her drink "the water of rebuke" (to udór tou elegmou, 5:19), consisting of holy water and dust from the tabernacle floor. If her abdomen swelled (préthó, unique to this text) and her thigh rotted (diapiptó, "fall through," employed of Antiochus' rotting corpse in 2 Macc. 9:9), she was considered to be guilty. Any explanation of the mechanism of this test is speculative. Since pregnancy is the most obvious proof of adultery (as in the case of David and Bathsheba, 2 Kgdms. 11:5), the refuse from animal sacrifices contained in tabernacle dust may have been intended to exacerbate conditions more likely to occur in a pregnant woman, such as "morning sickness." Since no time limit is stated (see v. 27), the swelling of the abdomen may simply refer to the pregnancy itself.
The verb moichaomai, occurring only in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, and Mark, appears to have the same range of meaning as moicheuó, and in fact replaces it in several variant readings and parallel passages (Ezek. 23:43; compare Matt. 19:9 with Luke 16:18). Ezekiel 16:32 employs this verb in a rare overt definition of this sin: an adulteress "takes rewards from her husband, gives rewards to all who commit prostitution with her." Adultery as deprivation of another's conjugal rights is behind Jesus' assertion that divorce is actually a form of moichaomai (Mark 10:11-12). Another aspect of adultery is that, in the absence of divorce, it results in the husband becoming unjustly responsible for children he did not conceive (Sir. 23:24).
Biblical adultery is nevertheless a far narrower category than in the modern popular imagination. Scripture assumes that intercourse is involved, whereas today the most casual touch or conversation may be condemned as adultery. The biblical definition normally involves a woman having intercourse with a man other than her husband; a man having intercourse with a woman other than his wife is not adultery, unless the wife is also deprived of her conjugal rights (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18). Paul asserted that "a woman who is under a man (upandros guné) is bound to the man while he lives" (Rom. 7:2); nowhere does Scripture affirm the reverse, that the man is so bound to the woman. Even this "binding" of the woman does not necessarily prevent the man from giving permission to his wife to be intimate with others (see the account of the Levite's concubine, Jgs. 19:23-25). The metaphoric language of Prov. 5:15-20 (e.g. "the water from your spring," v. 16) appears to prohibit all spouses from engaging in procreative intercourse with strangers, but otherwise, Scripture knows nothing of "forsaking all others" as a goal; instead, it insists that whatever happens should be with the knowledge and consent of both partners (Matt. 18:19).
The tenth commandment prohibited coveting (epithumeó) another man's wife (Ex. 20:17; Deut. 5:21), and thus condemns any attempt to engage in adultery, even if unsuccessful. This idea is repeated in Matthew 5:28, where the same word for coveting is employed. The translation of epithumeó in the latter text as "lust" leads however to very different conclusions. In modern English, "lust" means sexual desire as such, not merely the desire to perform intercourse by coercion or with prohibited persons. As a result, Matthew 5:28 is widely misused today to condemn male appreciation of the female body, sexually oriented literature, and sexual activity unrelated to intercourse, in some cases even in the context of marital union.
Jacob's sons referred to Shechem's coercive intercourse with their sister Dinah (Gen. 34:2) as "using her like a prostitute" (Gen. 34:31). A betrothed virgin found having intercourse with another man "in the field," where no one could have witnessed her resistance, was assumed to have been raped (Deut. 22:25-27). The death penalty was imposed in both cases.
Despite the obviously sinful context of Shechem's intercourse, the latter is still called "making love" (agapaó, Gen. 34:3). The common notion that the biblical terms for love exclude sexuality is contradicted by the Old Testament, where 14 of the 16 occurrences of agapé (excluding deuterocanonical books) have precisely that entailment; see especially Song 2:4-7 and 8:4-7.
The Scriptures do not contain specific prohibitions against intercourse with young children, not because the latter was permitted, but because this is simply a subdivision of rape. One may ask whether it is even biologically possible for a girl who has not yet approached adolescence to give freewill consent to intercourse, given the obvious lack of development in her endocrine system and sexual organs. However, it is not at all self-evident that Scripture would support the notoriously inconsistent and arbitrary "statutory rape" laws of modern times. Americans especially seem oblivious to the fact that, from biblical times until very recently, puberty was the universal age of majority. By contrast, nothing happens at 18 which makes one any more able to consent to sex. Current law and custom appear to be based on the dubious notion that a high school education makes some essential contribution to a person's moral development.
A male was not permitted to lie (koimaó) with another male (arsén) for "coitus of a woman" (koité gunaikos, Lev. 18:22); capital punishment was decreed for this act (Lev. 20:13). Since men obviously do not have vaginas, the phrase "coitus of a woman" implies awareness and acceptance of the practice of female oral and anal intercourse. The Sodomites were punished for desiring sexual intercourse (sugginomai) with Lot's male visitors (Gen. 19:5). That sugginomai is synonymous with koimaó is demonstrated by Genesis 39:10, where Potiphar's wife attempted intercourse with Joseph, and Judith 12:16, where Holofernes contemplated the same with Judith. As noted previously, the wages of a male prostitute (kuón, "dog," Deut. 23:18) were deemed unacceptable for use as offerings.
In the New Testament, an arsenokoités (1 Cor. 6:9; 1 Tim. 1:10) is clearly a male who has intercourse (koité) with another male (arsén), and cannot be restricted merely to a rapist, prostitute, or pedophile. Paul described these as males who had abandoned (aphiémi, Rom. 1:27) the natural function of the female. The most obvious biblical definition of "the natural function" would be that Scriptural book which is exclusively devoted to a discussion of sex, namely, the Song of Songs, in which a man and a woman enjoy each other's bodies apart from any such institution as monogamous "marriage" and without any intention to procreate children. The true purpose of homosexual prohibitions is thus not to overturn personal rights or pleasures, but to enhance them. God created the heterosexual attraction to be far more pleasurable, as well as far less physically dangerous, than non-heterosexual unions.
The notion that homosexuality cannot be condemned today because Jesus never condemned it is contradicted by the fact that Jesus did not condemn a number of other sexual acts prohibited elsewhere, notably rape, yet no one believes that Jesus thereby approved such behavior. Jesus did affirm the plenary authority of the Old Testament (Matt. 5:17-19; Luke 24:25-27, 44), thus the only issue regarding any sexual prohibition is whether the Scriptures apply it universally, or merely to a limited time or group. In the case of homosexuality, the universality of the prohibition, coupled with the total absence of any approval or even toleration, is beyond dispute.
Ironically, those who oppose homosexuality are all too frequently guilty of the same crime as homosexuals, namely, abandoning the natural function of the female by unbiblical restrictions on the latter. In addition, the absolute prohibition of intercourse between men must be coupled with the fact that nothing but such intercourse is prohibited. The Scriptures nowhere condemn men who prefer the company of other men (see 2 Sam. 1:26), share living quarters with men, or engage in non-intercourse intimacy with men.
Paul also disparaged females who "exchanged the natural function for what is opposed to nature" (para phusin, Rom. 1:26). The latter phrase cannot refer merely to intimacy between females, which is elsewhere commended (see Luke 7:38 and 18:15). As the verb "exchanged" (metallassó) makes clear, "what is opposed to nature" is only such intimacy to the exclusion of relations with men. Expressions of intimacy between women are quite appealing to most men, thus virtually all "lesbian pornography" is perused by heterosexual males. Genuine lesbians, by contrast, generally eschew even the most modest public displays of their physical attributes.
A man was prohibited from lying (koimaó) with livestock (kténos, Deut. 27:21); capital punishment was decreed for this act (Ex. 22:19). More detailed versions of this prohibition appear in Leviticus. A man was prohibited from engaging in koité eis spermatismon ("coitus for ejaculation," 18:23) with a four-footed creature, and a woman was prohibited from mounting (bibazó) the same. Capital punishment was decreed for a man who had intercourse (koitasia) with a four-footed creature, and for a woman who mounted livestock (20:15-16); in both cases the animal was also put to death. Such activity was prohibited for the same reason as homosexuality. Bestiality is the most likely explanation for the introduction of sexually transmitted diseases into human populations. For example, HIV/AIDS is known to have originated as a simian virus.
The repeated and specific prohibition of this rare act is a significant witness against the theory that the Scriptures do not contain a comprehensive list of sexual guidelines, which theory is proposed to justify the expansion of sexual prohibitions.
No incest prohibition occurs in Genesis. Abraham's wife Sarah was his half-sister, Terah being the father of both (Gen. 20:12). Even the admittedly unusual union between Lot and his daughters (Gen. 19:32) went unrebuked. Judah's intercourse with Tamar (Gen. 38:14-26) was judged as an incident of prostitution. That God merely conceded temporarily to the necessity of sexual union between close relatives in small populations lacks any textual support.
Indeed, one form of what today might be called incest was required throughout the Pentateuch, namely, the levirate (from the Latin levir, "husband's brother") union. A man was obligated to have intercourse with his deceased brother's wife when there was no heir (Deut. 25:5-10). Onan's refusal to do so with Tamar (by engaging in coitus interruptus) was punished by death (Gen. 38:8-10). Levirate unions continued to be practiced in the New Testament period (the widow in Mark 12:19-22, and probably also the Samaritan woman in John 4:17-18).
The most comprehensive list of relatives with whom one is not to have sexual relations is found in Leviticus 18:6-19. The specific activity prohibited was "revealing the shame" (apokalupsai aschémosunén), held by many to be euphemistic for intercourse, but in fact intended literally (as in Ex. 20:26) to mean "removing the clothing." The latter is of course prerequisite to most other sexual acts, including intercourse; nevertheless, an intercourse prohibition is always indicated by separate and unambiguous terms. Close relatives not to be forcibly denuded in the preceding generation were mother, father's wife, and aunt (father's sister, mother's sister, or father's brother's wife). Close relatives in the same generation were sister (father's daughter or mother's daughter), step-sister (father's wife's daughter), and brother's wife. Close relatives in succeeding generations were daughter-in-law (son's wife) and granddaughter (son's daughter or daughter's daughter). Other individuals concerning whom this sanction applied were a woman together with her daughter or granddaughter, two sisters, and a menstruating woman. It is unclear why the maternal uncle's wife was not included in this list. More conspicuously absent is the daughter, doubtless due to the fact that a father often views his daughter naked in the normal course of her upbringing. Since father-daughter incest is one of the most common forms, this is a significant additional witness against viewing Leviticus 18 as an incest text. It would appear that genuine incest, like pedophilia, is not specifically mentioned because it is a subdivision of rape.
A similar list may be constructed from Leviticus 20:10-21, where punishments for various sexual acts are specified. Four situations listed in Leviticus 18 are missing here (mother, step-sister, granddaughter, and two sisters), three result in capital punishment (father's wife, daughter-in-law, and a woman and her daughter), and all but one (father's or mother's sister) involve sexual intercourse, indicated by koimaó, "to lie with," or lambanó, "to take" (see Gen. 6:2 for another example of the sexual use of this verb).
Deuteronomy 27:20-23 repeats the prohibition against sexual intercourse with father's wife (see also Deut. 22:30) and sister, and adds a prohibition regarding mother-in-law and wife's sister (the latter only in Deut. 27:23 LXX). The significance of the divergences between these three lists is unclear. The general rule nevertheless seems assured that a man is not to take advantage of his "head of household" status to coerce close female relatives into any kind of sexual activity.
All three lists prohibit intercourse with a half-sister regardless of which parent the couple has in common (Lev. 18:9, Lev. 20:17, and Deut. 27:22), which would condemn the aforementioned union between Abraham and Sarah. This indicates that the Pentateuch's restrictions involving close relatives, like the divorce permission (Deut. 24:1-4; see below under Divorce), are to be viewed as temporary injunctions for Israel, not universally binding commands.
The case of brother's wife (Lev. 20:21) is noteworthy in that it is uniquely described as akatharsia, "impurity" or "uncleanness," a term which Paul employs in several lists of major sins following porneia (Gal. 5:19-21; Eph. 5:3-5; Col. 3:5). Its use in Leviticus to describe coerced sex, and by Paul for homosexuality (Rom. 1:24, 26-27), supports the idea that it is a "catch-all" term for male initiated sexual sin, over against prostitution, the most common female initiated sexual sin.
A daughter who stood to inherit property had to be united with another member of her father's tribe (Num. 36:1-12). The sons of Aaron also had to take a woman within their tribe, and were forbidden to take widows, divorced women, or prostitutes (Lev. 21:14).
Israelites were not permitted to marry Canaanites (gambreuó, Deut. 7:3). Abraham objected to any union between Isaac and the Canaanites (Gen. 24:3). Rebekah similarly opposed any union between Jacob and the Hittites (Gen. 27:46), based on the negative experience with Esau's Hittite wives (Gen. 26:34-35). Esau may have taken a daughter of Ishmael as his third wife in an attempt to please his parents (Gen. 28:8-9).
One exception to the prohibition of union with foreigners occurred when Israel conquered a territory; females of the area could be spared and taken as spouses (Deut. 21:10-14). In Israel's conquest of Midian (Num. 31:17-18), only women who had not known "coitus with a male" (koité arsenos) were spared.
Genesis 2:24 does not suggest a prohibition of polygamy, any more than "a man will leave his parent company and be joined with his new partner, and the two will become one corporation" precludes the subsequent inclusion of a third partner. The anti-polygamy interpretation requires the insertion of "only" at several points, as well as the dangerous notion that biblical morality is not immutable. Jesus quoted this text to condemn divorce (Matt. 19:5-6), and Paul employed it to condemn prostitution (1 Cor. 6:16).
Four characters in Genesis engaged in polygamy: Lamech (Cain's descendant, 4:19), Abraham (16:2), Esau (26:34-35 = 36:2, 28:9 = 36:3), and Jacob (29:23-24, 29:28-29, 30:4, 30:9). Five characters had a least one concubine (pallaké): Nahor (22:24), Abraham (25:6), Jacob (35:22), Eliphaz son of Esau (36:12), and Manasseh (46:20 LXX). The plural unions of Abraham and Jacob were proposed by the initial wives rather than the husband.
Opponents of polygamy frequently contend that its biblical practitioners encountered greater family problems, yet the most dramatic rifts within the patriarchal families involved the apparently monogamous ones. Adam and Eve were the source not only of the murderous conflict between Cain and Abel, but also of what many theologies call "original sin." The hostility between Isaac and Rebekah's twin sons Esau and Jacob, and thus the nations of Edom and Israel (see Obadiah), contrasts markedly with the fraternal relations of Abraham's sons Isaac and Ishmael, the sons of Abraham's other concubines, and the sons of Jacob's four wives. Divergent matrilineal descent was not a factor in the rivalry between Joseph and his brothers; indeed, Benjamin, who like Joseph was a son of Rachel, enjoyed special protection from his half-brothers (Gen. 43:8-9). The later tribes frequently crossed matrilineal boundaries in establishing close ties; for example, the land of Galilee combines Zebulun, a son of Leah, and Naphtali, a son of Rachel's maid Bilhah. Defenders of monogamy have failed to notice that, had their moral system been in place in Genesis, Jacob would have had either to divorce Leah or to forsake Rachel, rendering problematic either the origin of Jesus (a descendant of Leah's son Judah) or that of Paul (a descendant of Rachel's son Benjamin).
The Mosaic law assumed the practice of polygamy and concubinage. A female slave retains rights to intercourse (omilia) with her master even if he "takes another to himself" (Ex. 21:10), and the firstborn son of the first wife retains inheritance rights even if another wife is loved more (Deut. 21:15-17). The prohibitions against taking both a mother and her daughter or granddaughter (Lev. 18:17, punishable by death according to Lev. 20:14) or two sisters (Lev. 18:18) imply the right to take two unrelated women. The practice of levirate unions would have in some cases required polygamy; a deceased man's male relatives got no exemption from having intercourse with his widow because they already had wives.
Beyond the Pentateuch, the reference to "sixty queens, eighty concubines, and virgins (Heb ‘alamowth) without number" (Song 6:8) all but commends the practice. Those who claim that polygamy creates a context for idolatry (Solomon, 3 Kgdms. 11:1-8) forget that monogamists also engaged in idolatry (Ahab and Jezebel, 3 Kgdms. 16:31), and that a polygamist overturned Solomon's idolatry (Josiah, 4 Kgdms. 23:1-20; two of his wives are named in vv. 31 and 36). The New Testament never overtly addresses concubinage or polygamy. A clergyman should be "the man of one woman" (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:6), that is, not celibate, based on the idea that a man shows fitness for management of the spiritual household by management of a temporal one. That such texts also prohibit a polygamous clergy again requires the insertion of "only" into the text, whereas eis (fem. mia) can mean "one particular" as opposed to none at all (as when the primordial waters, although gathered into "one collection," at the same time are said to exist in multiple "collections," Gen. 1:9), or simply "a" or "an" (as in the description of Jairus as "one ruler," Matt. 9:18). If Paul is nevertheless requiring the New Testament clergy to be monogamous, such persons as Moses (Num. 12:1; note Miriam's punishment for opposing this union, v. 10) and Gideon (Jgs. 8:30) would not qualify.
The impulse toward monogamy, the notion of loving one person to the exclusion of all others, is difficult to reconcile with the biblical norm of love for "one another" (John 13:34). Paul compared the love of men for women (Eph. 5:25; not "one man for one woman") to Christ's love for the church, which is obviously a group rather than a lone individual. A false expectation of monogamy is not only the cause of much sexual conflict and jealousy, but also provides a pretext for redefining Christianity as a private experience of the individual believer with Christ (as in the Protestant hymn "In the Garden," which employs romantic language to direct the individual Christian to a relationship with Jesus which "none other may ever know").
Somewhat surprisingly, divorce is a rare topic in the Pentateuch. A divorced woman was prohibited from returning to her first husband after being taken by another (Deut. 24:1-4). Since Moses here failed to condemn divorce as such, and regarded a hazily defined "shameful matter" (aschémon pragma) as legitimate grounds, Jesus correctly judged this passage as improperly "allowing for" divorce (Matt. 19:8). It should be noted that the bulk of Deuteronomy is presented under the formula, "Moses said," whereas the legal material in Exodus through Numbers is presented under the formula, "the Lord said to Moses." As a result, ideas unique to Deuteronomy may in some cases be nothing more than Moses' personal opinions.
Since the Scriptures know nothing of "marriage" created by officers of the state or church, "divorce" cannot possibly mean the sundering of such an arrangement. Jesus' comments on the subject (Matt. 5:31-32 and 19:3-9) employ the noun apostasion, "desertion" (5:31), and the verb apoluó, "dismiss" (5:31-32, 19:8-9), both of which condemn the man for depriving the woman of sexual intimacy, physical sustenance, child support, and the like. It is thus possible for a woman to be legally divorced but not biblically deserted (as when an alimony and child support agreement is being honored), as well as to be biblically divorced while still legally married (as in the many familiar types of abusive relationship). As a result, there is no tension between the teachings of Jesus and Paul on the subject. The latter has been traditionally viewed as introducing different grounds for divorce (desertion, based on 1 Cor. 7:15, as opposed to "fornication," Matt. 5:32 and 19:9), but in fact desertion is divorce, not a distinct basis for same. The only legitimate reason for a man to desert a woman is "the logic of prostitution" (logos porneias, Matt. 5:32) in any of its previously discussed manifestations.
Jesus and Paul are also in agreement that divorce is a unilateral act of separation, blame for which is to be assigned solely to the perpetrator of the separation. It is thus highly improper to refer to victims of such separations as "divorced," as though they too are somehow at fault. Furthermore, the biblical material on divorce does not pertain to situations in which a man and a woman mutually agree to terminate a relationship. English readers have assumed that "man" (anthrópos) in the sentence, "What God has joined together, let man not put asunder" (Matt. 19:6) means "mankind," yet no one translates the previous verse, "Because of this, mankind will leave father and mother"; in both cases, the reference is to an individual person. But "if two of you agree on the earth concerning any matter" (Matt. 18:19), what otherwise might have been sinful ceases to be so. Thus the separation of Abraham from Hagar (Gen. 21:9-21) was not a divorce, since this was eventually sanctioned by all the parties involved, including God (21:12). As intercourse is not rape when a woman freely consents, so separation is not divorce when she freely consents.
Although widely assumed to have been a universal custom similar to modern engagement, betrothal in the biblical period was in fact extremely rare. The only regulations in which betrothal is mentioned have previously been discussed under Prostitution and "Premarital Sex" (the dowry to be paid for unbetrothed virgins, Ex. 22:16-17 and Deut. 22:28-29) and Rape (the presumption of coercion when there were no witnesses to intercourse between a man and a virgin betrothed to another, Deut. 22:25-27). The only betrothed characters in Scripture were Michal, a daughter of Saul and a bride of David (2 Sam. 3:14, inconsistently rendered "espoused" by the KJV), Sarah, the bride of Tobias son of Tobit (Tob. 6:13), and Mary, the bride of Joseph and the mother of Jesus (Matt. 1:18; Luke 2:5). A lengthy period of betrothal prior to cohabitation would have made sense only for a widow (Sarah) or a virgin in the sense of a preadolescent girl (Mary). The betrothal of Michal resulted from her father's plot to have David killed at the hands of the Philistines; David's "dowry" was set at one hundred Philistine foreskins, which Saul assumed David would be unable to acquire (1 Sam. 18:25-27).
Numbers 30:1-16, a discussion of vows and their potential annulment, is thought by some commentators to refer to vows of celibacy, but the text does not identify the content of these vows. In any case, Scripture knows nothing of celibacy as an act of spiritual devotion. The notion that "eunuch" means "celibate person" results in the claim that Jesus thought that celibacy was the only alternative to permanent monogamous "marriage" (Matt. 19:12). This is contradicted by the fact that the Bible's first eunuch had a spouse (Potiphar, Gen. 39:1, 7). Jesus' behavior with women (Luke 7:38, John 12:3, and probably also John 13:23) hardly suggests that he himself followed a celibate lifestyle. The notion that Paul was celibate cannot be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 9:5; indeed, his "yokefellow" (Phil. 4:3 KJV) was almost certainly a female acquaintance (see 3 Macc. 4:8, the only other biblical occurrence of the suzugos word group). Paul's status as "unmarried" (agamos, 1 Cor. 7:8) merely means that he was not involved in a relationship which required the permission of a woman's parents, such as an arranged marriage.
Recent ejaculation (koité spermatos) or nocturnal emission (rusis nuktos) by a man temporarily barred him from priestly (Lev. 22:4) or military (Deut. 23:10-11) service. Moses commanded all the men "not to approach a woman" in preparation for God's descent to Sinai (Ex. 19:15). Recently betrothed soldiers were exempted from military duty for one year (Deut. 20:7, 24:5). As "a concession, not as an order," Paul allows for temporary abstinence by mutual consent (1 Cor. 7:5-6).
Roman Catholicism deduces a birth control prohibition from the presupposition that sexuality exists solely for procreation, mitigated by an unbiblical distinction between "natural" and "artificial" methodology. Some Protestants deduce similar prohibitions from blessing texts (Gen. 1:28, 9:1, 9:7; Ps. 127:3); such an interpretation would however also condemn abstinence and celibacy, since these texts are addressed to people in general, not merely to spouses.
Any man who ejaculated (koité spermatos) was deemed ritually unclean until evening, and was required to wash himself and any "garment or leather" with which his semen came into contact (Lev. 15:16-17). This clearly refers to a man ejaculating by himself, since the next verse applies the same rule to a man who has intercourse with a woman. The application of this text to masturbation has been overlooked or denied by commentators who, presupposing that masturbation is sinful, inserted the word "involuntarily" into v. 16 so that it would refer solely to nocturnal emissions.
Opponents of masturbation generally admit that their position is not based on any biblical text. They have instead relied on deductions from assumed moral principles, such as the inherent evil of sexuality, procreation as the sole purpose of sexuality, or "marriage" (defined as a union created by the state or the church) as the sole context for sexuality. This argument has been assisted by the notion that whatever is not expressly commanded in Scripture is forbidden, and by the hazy entailment of certain translations of sexual terms (notably epithumeó, "covet," rendered as "lust"; porneia, "prostitution," rendered as "sexual immorality"; aselgeia, "permissiveness, license," rendered as "sensuality").
When such presuppositions are set aside, the purpose of Leviticus 15 becomes clear. Masturbation is in no way prohibited; touching one's own body obviously does no harm to the neighbor (see Gal. 5:14), unlike the prohibited acts of intercourse which risk untimely pregnancies, deadly diseases, and the violation of existing relationships. Nevertheless, like the other bodily emissions with which it is grouped (notably menstruation, Lev. 15:19), it can be a source of great embarrassment and shame. The purification procedures eliminate the basis for this shame and keep the act private.
The Pentateuch contains no rules concerning kissing or touching. The New Testament similarly permits such behavior without restriction (Luke 7:38, 18:15; Col. 2:20-23), while also commending those who do not participate in it (1 Cor. 7:1). Isaac is depicted as "playing with" Rebekah (paizó, Gen. 26:8), which leads Abimelech to conclude that they were husband and wife. This however is not necessarily a sexual term (see Gen. 21:9, where Ishmael "plays with" or "teases" Isaac). Since agapé includes rather than excludes sexuality (previously demonstrated under Rape), the "kiss of love" commended by Peter (1 Pet. 5:14) may well involve a demonstration of Christian fellowship which cannot be practiced in most modern "Christian" contexts.
The wearing of gender specific garments by the opposite sex is prohibited (Deut. 22:5). Application of this rule is complicated by the lack of any precise list of garments peculiar to either sex. If the Hebrew geber here means "warrior" (as in Jgs. 5:30) instead of merely "man," the prohibition may pertain solely to military officers and women impersonating each other.
Close female relatives were not to be undressed (Lev. 18:6-19). Ham saw his father's nakedness (gumnósis) and reported it (Gen. 9:22); unless this is euphemistic for some sexual act, the major offense here would be the reporting to others. Nudity as such is not otherwise condemned in Scripture, nor is there any "anatomical map" which would indicate which parts of the body could not be bared. Nudity was obviously not originally sinful (Gen. 2:25); one consequence of the fall into sin was to generate false shame in this regard (Gen. 3:7). It is this shame, misread as a divinely generated conscience, which has led to many unnecessary sexual prohibitions within and outside of Christianity.
The above material can be summarized by seven ongoing sexual prohibitions:
The first two prohibit non-heterosexual relations, thereby encouraging the full expression of heterosexuality. The second two prohibit coercion (men using non-sexual threats to obtain sexual goals, women using sexual enticements to obtain non-sexual goals), thereby making free will consent the basis for all sexual expression. The next two prohibit the one-sided termination of sexual relationships (the man cannot abandon the woman, and the woman cannot seek another man), thereby preserving the rights of all the parties involved.
The final prohibition is a subdivision of the general biblical principle of not being "unequally yoked with unbelievers" (2 Cor. 6:14), which protects the Christian against not just false sexual norms, but all aspects of harmful morality and religion.
Click here for a complete list of Sexuality Texts in the Pentateuch
