Why is adultery a sin?
From what I read and hear, many Christian answers have to do solely with the breaking of a contract. Marriage is a contractual arrangement in which both parties have certain rights, privileges, and responsibilities. Among those responsibilities is sexual exclusivity with the marriage partner. Breaking that contract harms the other person and is therefore a violation of the law of love.
The sin is entirely explained by the harm caused another person.
One problem with such an argument is that lots of marital arrangements suddenly become kosher: open marriages, spouse swapping, anything else where both parties agree it does not violate “the contract.” So long as the parties involved agree to the terms, it is just fine. No harm, no foul.
Of course, for Christians the Ten Commandments and the teaching of Christ make adultery about much more than human obligations. Adultery is a sin because it is rebellion against God. It is rejection of Christ’s lordship.
We do not have to explain the sin in terms of human harm — although we can in this case. Adultery is a sin because God has declared it so.
Is there a better answer than this?
There is a reason the word is adultery. It is because the sin involved when this was established was “adulterating” another man’s property. There are thus three commandments that relate to the property of others. It is not to be seized without permission. It is not to be sullied (adulterated). And it is not even to be coveted.
Contract implies some degree of parity between the partners. Wives were by no means thought to be equals of their husbands as this law came down.
Jesus and a number of other “liberal” or “radical” rabbis disputed this in his day. They had a much higher view of marriage, of wives, of women, and of sexual morality (even looking lustfully adulterates, according to Jesus).
Thanks for the history of the term. That is great stuff.
So, why is adultery a sin then?
Could part of the objection have been to adulterating the community’s blood lines, by producing children who could not be sure of their ancestry?
David,
Historically I might suggest the bloodline issue was handled a different way in Judaism. Judaism is and has been, for a very long time, a matrilineal inheritance. If the mother is Jewish, it does not matter who the father may be. Her child is recognized as part of the Jewish people.
It is suggested that this was precisely an adaptation to a situation where adultery was commonplace enough that a patrilineal descent rule could easily wipe out the people altogether. This did not mean adultery was acceptable– it wasn’t in general, in any of the surrounding cultures.
Again, what I think we need to get our minds around is that marriage in much of the OT may not have been seen as DIRECTLY covenantal at all, but rather as a property and family issue. I think one might say marriage was “proximately” covenantal, but only to the degree that the women were part of an “exchange” between families or nations that sealed the covenant between those families and nations, not nearly so much between the husband and wife (or wives, or concubines).
The prophets point toward a higher standard when they speak of Israel or Judah as adulterous toward YHWH. One gets a sense of “exclusive feelings” between the couple in Song of Solomon, but even for its protestation that “love is as strong as death” its cultural setting is the court of a “celebrated” polygamist the vast majority of whose wives were obtained through treaties. Perhaps the highest articulation of this standard is in Hosea.
There appears to have been little that suggests that even in the exilic and post-exilic period, indeed, even in the time of Jesus, the understanding of marriage had “normed” around a covenant between husband and wife. Jesus, some of the Pharisees, and early Christianity likely stood out both within Judaism and certainly in the wider cultural milieux of the Roman Empire as having a peculiarly strong emphasis on this.
So as we look at marriage as Christians, today, we need to own that we are part of what had been at best a “minority report” within Judaism and other cultures in approaching marriage as a covenant between those whom it joined. We, along with post-temple Judaism (thanks to the influence of some of those Pharisees mentioned above), have grounded marriage in the creation narrative, and we in particular have come to further ground it, when it is between two Christians, in the baptismal covenant, indeed, as a specification of that covenant– how the relationship between the persons joined will be an arena and example of striving to be faithful to the prior baptismal vows.
God is not arbitrary. His design for marriage is intended for our benefit. All other aspects of His law are for the purpose of shalom, not just between individuals but among a community of people. So I’m not sure why you have to turn to a nominalist form of morality here: “Adultery is a sin because God has declared it so.” The Calvinists enjoy having a “because I said so” God who is incomprehensible. But I don’t think it’s wrong to say that God declared adultery to be a sin because He loves us and wants what’s best for us.
I don’t think God’s commands are arbitrary either. I think adultery is unqualifiably bad, and I think we know that without a doubt because God has spoken.
Even if I come up with a clever argument to make the case that it is not really harmful (shifting ground here to fornication might be more productive), I know that this is an illusion because God’s pronouncement has already made it clear what is bad and what is good.
But to me the key issue is that sinfulness is not dependent on any human system of morality or judgment.
This is where I was going with the God declared it statement.
But if good is good simply because God wills it and not because there is an objective goodness inherent to good, it seems like you’re on a slippery slope that leads to ideas like predestinarianism.
“Because God says so” doesn’t sound like a great answer to me. If I don’t believe in God or don’t love God, why should I care? Also, as a Christian, it just makes God sound like a bully.
At the risk of perpetuating stereotypes, I just saw a cartoon from a Muslim friend on Facebook with a picture of Batman giving Robin a long back-handed slap across the face. The caption was Robin saying “It’s too hot to pray” and Batman saying “Hell is hotter. Go make Salah.” That’s what “God says so” sounds like to me.
Not to mention the fact that there is a difference between biblical “covenant” and a human “promise”. Nowhere in the Old Testament or the Jewish religion is marriage anything like a Christian Sacrament. But God’s commitment to Israel IS compared to the marriage contract.
I can’t see how a proper, biblical and Godly, covenant opens marriage up to polygamy. I can see how it *doesn’t* provide the kind of air-tight, logical, knock-em-dead argument that so many of us modern people like. But, then again, neither does “God said so”.
Okay, Pam, then help me out. Why is adultery a sin?
And anticipating your argument a bit, could you explain why your conception of a covenant precludes an open marriage?
John, I’m not sure there is any water-tight argument other than the experience of living for 20 years in a monogamous marriage and learning of it’s personality-honing qualities first-hand. If you want a principle-based proposition or a rule-based proposition, how does your approach preclude polygamy?
Some things are experiential. And it’s amazing all the arguments that get made by conservatives which – if you look at them from a different perspective – say “There is really no point to marriage if you don’t have kids and there is nothing to be gained from monogamy other than providing a stable environment for the children.”
My definition (I’m not sure if “rule” or “proposition” are the right word) is that marriage is the lifelong monogamous union of one man and one woman. So, polygamy is excluded by definition. I am aware this is not without difficulty, and the biblical materials do include cases of polygamy. I fall back on Jesus in the face of that.
All that said, I think I understand your point about experience. It is hard to explain experience, especially to those who do not have that experience. And I do think that our desires are sometimes disordered enough that we need the bumper rails of actual rules to keep us out of the gutters.
How do we know “God has declared it so”? Strictly Scripture? A particular part of Scripture? Is there any other way to know what God has declared?
I’ll be honest, Erin, I was not aware this was a controversial claim. I choose what I thought was something all Christians would agree is a sin. But to respond to your question I would cite Scripture. Lots of places, but the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount are two explicit references.
You are right, we probably all do agree on this point. I raise the issue because Scripture says some thinks that we might not agree about. Two Christians might have “God declaring” two opposite things. I usually find myself on the not-so-literal side. And some of my justification for those views might be extra-biblical.
Here’s my best shot on short notice: I think the more interesting question (and the one I’ll try to answer, cuz I think it answers yours as well) is why did God make it one of the ten commandments? The answer to that seems to me is that it violates the relationship between human beings. It is…a sign of a broken covenant – perhaps between spouses (though it’s hard to figure that one out in what appears to be a polygamous culture) and between neighbors (and perhaps enemies?). To me almost all of the 10 commandments are there because as my mother would say “they’re just common sense.” Even though one cannot say the same for all of us who are followers of God, for the most part I think God often uses what we call common sense. So – adultery is a sin, not because it is one of the 10 commandments, but it is one of the 10 commandments because it is a sin. And it is a sin because it violates the relationships between human beings…(whew)…not sure much of any of that made sense…but I gotta run to Bible Study where I hope we’ll all avail ourselves of a bit of common sense.
Okay, this is the dominant response. So, adultery is a sin because it harms another person and/or breaks a covenant.
What if my wife and I decide to become swingers? We agree. Neither of us is harmed.
So, that would not be a sin?
The covenant you and your wife entered is no longer negotiable, though constantly negotiated, to be sure. Your promise to be faithful to each other for life precludes all others. To change that is actually to break the covenant you made.
I think we may also musconstrue the solemn (and initially, deadly) nature of covenants. They are not merely agreements or provisional arrangements between the parties, or even contracts. It was not for nothing that the Hebrew here is “cathav berith” … to cut a covenant. The cutting referred to the animals often sliced in two as witnesses, with the understanding that breaking the terms meant ending up like these witnesses.
@Taylor — Great information.
So, this is strictly speaking a matter of covenant breaking and not primarily about sex?
Adultery is the breaking of one’s word, the marriage vow. It is betrayal at the deepest level-betrayal of your spouse, betrayal of God and betrayal of life. It is the demolishing of the vulnerability your partner vowed to you at marriage. It is the demolishing of the trust God gave you when you were married.
We say in the UM liturgy that marriage is a model for Christ’s love for the church (the people of God). Christ gives us the model for how a Christian marriage operates: it is marked by profound vulnerability, radical mutuality, the giving of one’s life for another. the highest levels of joy and intense, lifelong loyalty.
God desires for us to have life and have it abundantly. Marriage is a beautiful avenue to the abundant life that Jesus died to give us. Adultery shatters the gift of abundant life that God wants to give us. It not only injures the marriage, it insults God.
And yes…it is about the sex. Sex is so powerfully fulfilling within a relationship marked by avowed loyalty and mutuality. Through sex, your partner submits to you in a profound manner that is spiritual as well as physical. Through the nakedness of sex, a bit of Eden is restored. And, of course, it is through this act that children are brought into the world. Sex has life-giving properties, so to flaunt it so flagrantly is to corrupt this immense power that God has given us.
The sin of adultery is multifaceted. It is a betrayal of one’s partner, a denial of the life God intends for us and corruption of the life-giving power of sex.
I think this is interesting to think about…reminds me of some of the back and forth on JM Smith’s Blog about homosexuality (maybe you too?) As some have said I have trouble with “because I said so” rules. I think that sin is sin because it causes harm. That said, one’s own perception of harm certainly does not have the final word. I think the harm in adultery is demonstrable in psychological studies among other things (reason/experience/tradition/witness in biblical narrative ). Things may get tricky with other examples… and it is a interesting/challenging thing when we start thinking about things with the potential to harm.
This conversation has been quite interesting to me. It has me thinking that my first question should have been “what is sin”?
My understanding of Catholic teaching is that sin is a willful violation of a command of God, which is necessarily evil because God is the source of all good. Wesley’s teaching on sin is quite close to my understanding of the Catholic teaching (which may explain some of why he was called Catholic by the Calvinists). I start with Catholics only because they do a good job of being quite explicit in what they mean.
For both, (and likely others) the definition of sin is the rejection of God’s commands or law. Because God is good, of course, the rejection of God’s commands leads to harm and evil. Every command of God is good.
The practical problem comes in when the content of God’s commands becomes contested. That seems to be when we import in notions of utility or some other human value system to determine good and bad. But these human valuations, it seems to me, are always valid only to the extent that they reflect God’s valuations.
My favorite definition of adultery came from a 12 year old pastor’s son. During a children’s sermon one day he blurted out that it means “Don’t do what your parents do…” (The pastor’s sermon was not heard that day; but David’s was long remembered.)
I’m staggered by the pastor who would make adultery the subject of a children’s sermon. Either brilliant or crazy. Not sure which.
Pingback: How is ordination like a marriage? « John Meunier
All that said, I think I understand your point about experience. It is hard to explain experience, especially to those who do not have that experience. And I do think that our desires are sometimes disordered enough that we need the bumper rails of actual rules to keep us out of the gutters.
I really don’t like this threading system on WordPress.
Yes, sometimes we need actual rules but I think you’re making up your rule as much as I am making up my rule. So why don’t we just be honest about that process?
“Marriage is a life-time commitment of one person to another” makes just as much sense to me as your rule. Where the heterosexual component of your formula doesn’t make sense to me is where it essentially turns everything that I believe I have benefited from in marriage into a sin because the two parties are homosexual.
Really, the only philosophically consistent process I can see is the old Roman Catholic one: “God has given The Church hierarchy to you lay people because you can’t be trusted to know what’s good for you. The Church hierarchy says one man and one woman marry for life for the purpose of procreation. No divorce, ever, even in the most dire of circumstances. No sexual activity that doesn’t have the potential of begetting children. And if you are unable to have children, you may not marry but must remain celibate.”
That’s all internally consistent. Once you allow divorce, even on the pastoral grounds, the whole consistency of the thing is pretty much shot and we are all making it up as we go along. Which is not an argument for the old RC way – rather an argument for honesty of process.
I am not aware of myself as making up my rule, but rather trying to understand the testimony of Scripture and the historic understanding of the church. Of course, I am an imperfect human prone to mistakes, so I may be discerning such things incorrectly, but my goal — what I take as my duty — is to try to determine God’s will in such things because God’s will must be good and just.
I don’t see the same binary you do — either the Roman Catholic way or say we are all making everything up as we go. I see a lot more middle ground between those two. For one, Jesus allowed divorce. I actually see the United Methodist position as a pretty good representation of what Jesus said in MT 19.
I’ll chime in here with Pam to say that the Catholics, agree or not with their conclusions, have the most consistent and well-thought out actual theology of human sexuality and marriage. I give them props for doing the hard work of staying consistent, even in the face of unpopular conclusions.
I know I’m late getting in the game, but I figured it couldn’t hurt.
The first thing that occurs to me is that (a) our urge toward materialism has led us to believe we’re just hunks of flesh, while another strand in our culture (b) edges toward a gnostic denial of our bodily nature, making only the spiritual count. Biblically, we humans are spiritual and material, intertwined so deeply there seems no ultimate point of division. The eternity God intends for us includes a bodily resurrection. God also calls us, in our total being, to image him to creation.
Similarly, our life now is a life of body and spirit. Marriage is more than a contract, more than a legitimation for sex and its fruits, more than an outcome for romantic love. Scripture speaks of it as becoming “one flesh.” This “becoming one flesh” is not just a momentary thing that comes and goes in moments of sexual intercourse. Sex might be a major part of the means, but I take the “one flesh” to be something that endures. Adultery works against that “one flesh,” ripping it apart.
We can observe that people can have sex without marriage. Sure. But the advantage of marriage is that the “one flesh” takes place in the context of an institution designed to support and nourish that “one flesh” relationship. Sex may be a sort of “rivet,” but it’s NOT the whole of it, and, especially as the relationship solidifies and endures, is probably not even primary.
Thank you for these thoughts, Richard. The “rivet” metaphor is both evocative and constructive.