the Week of Proper 28 / Ordinary 33
Click here to learn more!
Bible Dictionaries
Adultery (2)
Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament
or ADULTERY (μοιχεία).—This word is used to denote the sexual intercourse of a married man or woman with any other than the person to whom he or she is bound by the marriage tie. It has sometimes been maintained that μοιχεία is confined in its use to the misdemeanours, in this respect, of the woman. That it has, however, a wider sense is evidenced by the reference which Jesus makes to the inward lust of any man after any woman (ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτῆς ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτήν, κ.τ.λ., Matthew 5:28). The word πορνεία is also employed to describe this sin, though it has been contended that it refers solely to pre-nuptial immorality; and again we have a reference made by Jesus in His teaching to this sin, which disposes of that contention, and which establishes the fact that the married woman who commits herself in this way was said to be guilty of πορνεία (cf. παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας, Matthew 5:32, and (εἰ) μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ Matthew 19:9). In both passages just quoted Jesus makes the woman’s guilt the ground of His teaching on divorce. With these examples we may compare the words of Amos 7:17 (LXX Septuagint) … ἠ γυνή σου ἐν τῇ πόλει πορνεύσει, κ.τ.λ, where the form of the expression incidentally but conclusively carries out our argument.
A very favourite figure of speech, by which the intimate relations of Jehovah and Israel were denoted by OT writers, was that of marriage (see, e.g., Isaiah 54:5; Isaiah 62:5, Jeremiah 3:14, Hosea 2:7; Hosea 2:19-20); and accordingly in the prophetic books the defection of the Jewish people from the altars of Jehovah, and their repeated reversions to the worship and practices of their heathen neighbours, were stigmatized as ‘adultery’ (ni’ûph or ni’ûphîm, Jeremiah 13:27, Ezekiel 23:43; cf. Isaiah 57:3, Jeremiah 3:8 f., Ezekiel 23:37). This transference of an idea from the daily social life to the life spiritual finds its place in the teaching of Jesus, whose example in this respect is followed by writers of a subsequent period (cf. James 4:4). The generation in which He lived was denounced by Him, for its continued rejection of His claims, as ‘wicked and adulterous’ (γενεὰ πονηρὰ καὶ μοιχαλίς, Matthew 12:39; Matthew 16:4; cf. also Mark 8:38). It is, of course, possible that Jesus by these words had in view the social evils of His day, as well as the general lack of spiritual religion. ‘That nation and generation might be called adulterous literally; for what else, I beseech you, was their irreligious polygamy than continual adultery? And what else was their ordinary practice of divorcing their wives, no less irreligious, according to every man’s foolish or naughty will?’ (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talmud. ad Matthew 12:39). It is not necessary, however, in the interpretation of His teaching in this and similar places to insist on such a view of His words. The entire body of the recorded teaching of Jesus betrays the most intimate acquaintance with the literature and ethical tendencies of the OT.
That exceedingly lax and immoral views of this sin were held generally by the generation in which Jesus lived, becomes evident not only from His casual references to the subject, but also from His positive teaching in answer to hostile questions addressed to Him about adultery and the kindred subject of divorce. We are also confronted with the same phenomenon in the writings, e.g., of Josephus (cf. Ant. iv. viii. 23; Vita, § 76), Sirach 7:26; Sirach 25:26; Sirach 42:9, and in the Talmud. The result of the teaching of Hillel was of the worst description, reducing as it did the crime of adultery to the level of an ordinary or minor fault. This Rabbi actually went the length, in his interpretation of the Deuteronomic law of divorce as stated in Deuteronomy 24:1, of laying down the rule that a man might put away his wife ‘if she cook her husband’s food badly by salting or roasting it too much’ (see Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talmud ad Matthew 5:31), and R. ‘Akiba, improving on this instruction, interpreted the words ‘if she find no favour in his eyes’ as giving permission to a man to divorce his wife ‘if he sees a woman fairer than her.’
On the other hand, R. Shammai refused to take a view so loose and immoral, and in his exposition of the Deuteronomic permission confined the legality of divorce to cases of proved unchastity on the part of the wife. Other celebrated Rabbins took a similarly rigid view of this question, while all, of every school, were agreed that the crime of adultery demanded divorce as its punishment. The form of the question addressed to Jesus by the Pharisees (κατὰ πᾶσαν αἱτίαν) in Matthew 19:3 shows the nature of the controversy between the rival Rabbinical schools, and also lets us see how far the pernicious teaching of the school of Hillel had permeated the social fabric. Men’s ideas about this sin were also debased by the polygamous habits then prevalent. Of Herod the Great we read that he had ten wives; which, according to Josephus, was not only permissible, but had actually become a common occurrence amongst the Jews, ‘it being of old permitted to the Jews to marry many wives’ (BJ i. xxiv. 2). In another place the same historian remarks, in connexion with the story of the Herodian family, that ‘it is the ancient practice among us to have many wives at the same time’ (Ant. xvii. i. 2). There seems to have been no hard and fast rule limiting the number of wives permissible to each man, but their teachers advised them to restrict themselves to four or five (cf. Schürer, HJP [Note: JP History of the Jewish People.] i. i. 455, note 125).
From these observations we see what an important bearing the teaching of Jesus had on the current conceptions of sexual morality obtaining amongst His countrymen. It is quite in harmony with His method of instruction to reduce the overt commission of a sin to the element out of which it originates and takes its shape. ‘A corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit’ (Matthew 7:17 f., cf. Matthew 12:33 and Luke 6:43 f.), and the heart corrupted by evil desire fructifies, just as surely, by an inexorable law of nature. There exists within the man whose inner life is thus tainted not merely latent or germinal sin, such as may or may not yet issue in deeds of wrong. The lustful eye gazing with sinful longing is the consummation,—the fruit of the corrupt tree,—and so far as the man’s will is concerned, the sinful act is completed (Matthew 5:28). The note of sternness which characterizes this teaching is not altogether original, as will be seen if we refer to such commands as are found, e.g., in Exodus 20:17, Proverbs 6:25, Sirach 9:8 etc., and to such interpretative sayings in the Talmud as forbade the gazing upon ‘a woman’s heel’ or even upon her ‘little finger’ (cf. Lightfoot, Hor. Heb. et Talmud. ad Matthew 5:28). The ethical foundation, however, upon which Jesus based His doctrine strikes the reader as being the deepest and the firmest of any that had as yet been revealed on the subject; and this must have seemed to His hearers to be not the least remarkable of those luminous addresses by which He contradicted the laboriously minute guidance of their moral and religious guides. We are not concerned here to inquire whether Jesus put no difference between the guilt of the man who, though he has lustful desires, abstains from carrying them into practice, and that of the man who completes them by the sinful act. Common sense forbids us to suppose that Jesus put out of sight the social aspects of the question when He discussed it. What is of importance is to note the lofty tone assumed by Him when engaged in inculcating the absolute necessity of sexual purity. Nor is it possible to infer that Jesus confined His remarks to the case of those who were married. The general terms into which He casts His instruction (πᾶς ὁ βλέπων) forbids us to assume that γυναῖκα and ἐμοίχευσεν are to be limited to the post-nuptial sin with a married woman. It gives a much more fitting as well as a truer meaning to Jesus’ words if we think of Him as giving directions for the guidance of the entire social and ethical life to all members of society whether married or otherwise.
According to the laws of the ancients, those guilty of adultery were to be put to death, whether by burning (Genesis 38:24) or by stoning (John 8:5, cf. Deuteronomy 22:23 ff., Leviticus 20:10, Ezekiel 18:11 ff.). This punishment was not, however, universally prescribed; for where the woman was a slave, and consequently not the owner of her own person, the man was exonerated by presenting a guilt-offering (Leviticus 19:20 ff.). It is doubtful, indeed, if ever capital punishment was insisted on. Lightfoot, for example, says: ‘I do not remember that I have anywhere in the Jewish pandect read any example of a wife punished with death for adultery’ (Horae Heb. et Talmud. ad Matthew 19:8). This statement is borne out by such incidental references as we have in Matthew 1:19, where Joseph receives the praise of his contemporaries (δίκαιος ὤν) for his merciful intention; and if the story of Hosea’s wife is to be taken literally, we have an OT example of mercy towards the guilty being recommended, and even of divorce not being suggested as a punishment. Jesus Himself also leaned to the side of mercy; and nowhere does the tenderness of His solicitude for the guilty sinner appear so deep as in the traditional, yet doubtless genuine, narrative incorporated in the Fourth Gospel (John 7:53 to John 8:11). For a discussion of the ‘pericope adulterae’ see Blass, Ev. sec. Lucam, Pref. p. xlvii, and his Philology of the Gospels, pp. 155–163.
A closer examination than we have as yet attempted in this place, of the words and teaching of Jesus Christ will reveal some startling results, and furnish obvious reasons to explain the difficulties which have been always felt on the relations of adultery, divorce, and remarriage, by Christian thinkers and legislators. A comparative examination of the passages in the Synoptic writers (Matthew 5:32; Matthew 19:9, Mark 10:11 f., Luke 16:18) discloses a peculiar addition to the words and teaching in the first of these places. According to Matthew 5:32, Jesus asserts that the wife who is wrongfully divorced is involved compulsorily in the guilt of her husband. He is not only an adulterer himself (Luke 16:18), but ‘he causes her to be an adulteress,’ or rather ‘he makes her to commit adultery’ (ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι). The interpretation which would explain these words as if they meant that the divorced wife is placed in such a position that she probably will commit adultery by marrying another man, is manifestly unsatisfactory. The statement in unqualified even if we are absolutely convinced of the genuineness of the succeeding words, ‘καὶ δς … μοιχᾶται.’ [They are omitted by DH, see WH [Note: H Westcott and Hort’s text.] , New Test. in Greek]. It is as if Jesus said: ‘The wife who is divorced is, in virtue of her false position, an adulteress though she be innocent, and the man who marries her while she occupies that position becomes a willing partner in her guilt.’ It is not too much to say that, in this place, we have a glimpse of the profound depth which Jesus was accustomed to sound in His ethical teaching. Marriage is a Divine institution, and has its roots in the eternal order of things (cf. Matthew 19:4-6). It results in a mystical union so close that the married pair are no longer two; they have become ‘one flesh.’ With this we may compare the teaching which St. Paul embodies in a few luminous words based on his Christological doctrine (Ephesians 5:22-33 especially Ephesians 5:28-29), and of which he says ‘this mystery is great.’
We have thus a clue to the meaning of the difficult expression ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι. Any mode of conduct or action which tends to mar or set at nought the mysterious relationship of marriage is of the essence of adultery. Perhaps we shall not be considered to be importing more meaning into words than they were originally intended to convey, if we press the Markan addition ἐπὶ αὐτήν into our service here. Jesus, according to St. Mark, seems to teach His hearers that the husband in wrongfully divorcing his wife is guilty of the aggravated sin of dragging her into the slough where he is himself already wallowing. On him falls the woe pronounced in another connexion by Jesus (Matthew 18:6-7); for he compels his wife to occupy a position which is a living contradiction of the Divine law. A course of action tending to the dissolution of that which in the Divine intention is indissoluble, Jesus places in the category of adulterous acts. He mentions nothing as to His view of the case of the remarriage of a woman justifiably divorced, but to the present writer He appears plainly to assert that the man who marries an innocent divorced woman is guilty of adultery.
In our critical examination of these passages we are confronted with a still greater and no less remarkable variety. St. Matthew differs from the other two Synoptists by giving a place in Jesus’ teaching to an implied ground for legitimate divorce. He alone includes the exceptive clauses παρεκτὀς λόγου πορνεἰας (Matthew 5:32) and μἡ ἐπὶ πορνεία (Matthew 19:9). It is this variety in the records of Jesus’ words which has introduced so much difficulty, doctrinal and legislative, into the questions of divorce and the remarriage of divorced persons. We are not, of course, without that form of conjectural criticism which would delete these clauses as mere glosses or unsuitable interpolations (see Bacon, The Sermon on the Mount, ad loc.). In the absence, however, of external or textual evidence we are not entitled to invent textual emendations in the interests of a preconceived theory (cf. Wright, Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, p. 98 f.). It is but fair to add that the Codex Vaticanus (B) and some less important authorities manifest a strong desire to make Matthew 19:9 conform literally to Matthew 5:32, and thereby create some uncertainty as to the textual purity of these passages. The evidential value, however, for these variations is too slight to be of any avail against the unanimity of all our other witnesses; they are transparent and later attempts at assimilation or harmony. The argumentum e silentio is in this case too strong to admit the validity of conjecture. A forcible statement of the other side of the case may be found in the art. ‘Sermon on the Mount’ (Votaw) in the Extra Vol of Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible p. 27.
At all periods of the history of Christian teaching, differences of opinion have existed within the Church as to the practical application of Jesus’ words concerning adultery, divorce, and remarriage. These differences have been stereotyped in the Eastern and Western branches of the Catholic Church. The former takes the more lenient view, and permits the remarriage of the innocent divorcé (e), while the latter has always maintained the more stringent and (shall we say?) the more strictly literal conclusion from Jesus’ words, that inequality of treatment is not to be tolerated, interpreting the conclusion by refusing the right of remarriage to either during the life of the other.
On the other hand, the general consensus of theological opinion amongst English-speaking divines since the Reformation has leaned towards the view held by the Eastern Church, and the resolutions of the bishops in the Pan-Anglican Conference of 1888 on this subject were but the formal expressions of a traditional mode of interpretation. When we turn from the words of Jesus to see what were the ideas of those who taught in His name during the ages immediately subsequent, we have St. Paul’s teaching on, and references to, the question of divorce. In one place he treats marriage as indissoluble, and he has no hesitation in saying that the woman who marries another man during the lifetime of her husband is guilty of adultery (Romans 7:1-3). On the other hand, we must not forget that the Apostle in this place is dealing with the Jewish law and with Jews who did not admit the absolute indissolubility of the marriage tie. The fact that he has made no reference to this Jewish law of divorce forbids us drawing any certain conclusion as to the length St. Paul was willing to go in stating a universal principle which would guide the legislative activity of the Christian Church. In another place he speaks of separation as the possible outcome of an unhappy or unequal marriage, and gives permission, if not encouragement, to that contingent result (χωριζέσθω). In this he goes farther than Jesus, so far as we have His teaching recorded for us, went. According to Jesus, adultery is the only crime of sufficient enormity to warrant divorce; according to St. Paul, the law of marriage does not govern the deserted wife or husband (οὐ δεδοὑλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, 1 Corinthians 7:15 [cf. Newman Smyth, Christian. Ethics3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , p. 412f. and note]).
The Shepherd of Hermas (Mand. iv. 1. 6) lays down the rule that adultery demands separation or divorce (ἀπολυσάτω αὑτήν), because by continuing to live with his wife after she has been convicted of guilt, the husband becomes ‘an accomplice in her adultery.’ On the other hand, he is equally insistent that the man thus wronged must not marry another, lest he cut his guilty partner off from the hope of repentance, and lest he involve himself likewise in the sin of adultery (ἑὰν δὲ ἀπολύσας τἡν γυναῖκα ἐτέραν γαμήσῃ, καὶ αὐτὸς μοιχᾶται).
Amongst the number of those who are debarred from inheriting the kingdom of God, St. Paul mentions fornicators and adulterers (πόρνοι καὶ μοιχοί 1 Corinthians 6:9; cf. Ephesians 5:5, 1 Timothy 1:10, Hebrews 13:4, Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15).
The universal conclusion is that this sin creates a breach of the marriage relation so grave and far-reaching that it makes divorce the only legitimate sequel—divorce a mensâ et thoro. The question, however, remains whether the Christian Church has the right to go farther and say that, as the result of an adulterous act, the aggrieved party has a just claim to divorce a vinculo; has a right, that is to say, to be placed in a position as if the marriage had never taken place. This will, no doubt, be answered differently by different minds, and the difficulty is not decreased by merely appealing to the authority of Jesus. Different answers are given to the more fundamental questions, Did Jesus intend to occupy the position of legislator when He spoke of adultery and divorce? or was He simply enunciating a general principle, leaving future generations to deal with social conditions as they arose? The present writer has no hesitation in saying that his own opinion leans strongly to the side of those who believe that Jesus affirmed solemnly the indissolubility of the marriage tie, and that He meant His followers to understand that the remarriage of either party during the life of the other constitutes adultery. At the same time he is not unaware of the fact that there is a strong body of sober modern thought which tends towards a relaxation of this view in favour of the innocent (see Gore, The Sermon on the Mount, p. 73).
If Jesus in Matthew 5:27-32 is making a categorical statement of universal application, then the opinion, given by the present writer as his own, can scarcely be disputed; but if He is interpreted as dealing with the foundations rather than making structural alterations in the ethical beliefs of His countrymen, we must conclude that He leaves His followers to deal with the question as it arises. In the latter case it is, of course, competent for the Church in each age to treat the question de novo. The conditions of society alter, and what constitutes danger to the social welfare at one time, may have comparatively little peril for the people of another period. At the same time it must not be forgotten that the tendency of human legislation has been and is likely to be, for some time to come at least, towards the loosening of the marriage bond, and the minimizing of the seriousness of that guilt by which men uproot the foundations of their social and domestic life.
Literature.—Newman Smyth’s Christian Ethics3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] contains a very fair and cautious discussion of this whole question, and along with that work it will be found useful to study the more abstract volume of Bampton Lectures on the same subject (1895) by T. B. Strong; cf. G. B. Stevens’ The Theology of the NT. Gore’s The Sermon on the Mount may be read along with Bacon’s volume of the same title, and Votaw’s article ‘Sermon on the Mount’ in the Extra Volume of Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible. In the latter work (vols. i. and iii.) are also to be found useful references under artt. ‘Crimes,’ ‘Marriage.’ A very suggestive art., ‘The Teaching of Christ about Divorce,’ by the Rev. the Hon. E. Lyttelton, will be found in the Journal of Theol. Studies for July 1904. Cf. also H. M. Luckock’s History of Marriage (1894), and O. D. Watkins’ Holy Matrimony (1895).
J. R. Willis.
These files are public domain.
Text Courtesy of BibleSupport.com. Used by Permission.
Hastings, James. Entry for 'Adultery (2)'. Hastings' Dictionary of the New Testament. https://www.studylight.org/dictionaries/eng/hdn/a/adultery-2.html. 1906-1918.
