The "Sin" of Adultery - Reexamining Some Judeo-Christian Beliefs

Reexamining Some

Judeo-Christian Beliefs

The "Sin" of Adultery

When we examine their origins, many Judeo-Christian beliefs end up being different that we've been led to believe

Adultery is one.

We'll establish this with three major points.

1. In early Jewish culture when these commandments were codified women were the property of their husbands and polygamy was widely practiced.

Two commandments are related here: not coveting your neighbor's house, wife, slaves, ox, or ass—note the order of importance—and not committing adultery and "defiling" a man's wife. (Possibly in the era before birth control getting her pregnant was an unstated element.)

When a man could have as many wives as he wanted, these prohibitions were intended to keep a man from taking over another man's possession(s)—including the second in importance, his wife. Stealing a husband is not noted since a husband was not property.

This "property prohibition" becomes even clear considering the Jewish law (on which Christian laws were later based) that allowed men to have sex with an unmarried woman. This wasn't adultery, but it was, however, a crime against her father. As a "used woman," this lowered her value as a wife and reduced the dowery ("bride price") her father could expect to get for her.

According to Jewish law, if a man did have sex with her, the offender was to be fined an amount equal to what the father would lose in his daughter's value as a wife. Again, it was a matter of property, in this case money.

The scriptures clearly show that the prohibition against adultery involved a daughter's "prestine property value" to a father.

Prostitution and slavery were accepted and men were not included in the prohibition against adultery.

You will recall that according to Jewish law if the family of the woman could not prove she was a virgin at the time of marriage (the way of determining this is not stated) she was to be stoned to death. Dare we suggest that in terms of property value she then wouldn't be worth keeping?

Before you brand this as impossibly harsh, you need to consider these Bible passages. Clearly women were held in very low esteem in those days. Today, fundamentalist Christians still cling to the undercurrents of these verses, as noted here.

2. Under the Catholic Church, the prohibition against adultery found another justification—holding onto church property.

In those days churches and associated property were commonly owned by the priests. If priests could marry and have children, then this property would pass to the children. This would be especially worrisome if there were illegitimate children. (Recall that according to the Judeo-Christian scriptures, priests can own slaves.)

Today, in supporting its prohibition against priests marrying, the Catholic Church cites the belief that Christ was not married. This in part explains the church's strong reaction to evidence that Christ was married.

Later, Protestentism would, of course, adopt most all of the Jewish and Catholic scriptures, which is where we are today.

3. Finally, growing out of centuries of Judeo-Christian beliefs about a wife (and later a husband) belonging to a spouse, Judeo-Christian societies (but not all societies) developed a strong level of possessiveness.

This also spawned jealousy when a perceived threat of someone coveting or taking my wife, or my husband entered the picture.

Although jealousy is based on personal insecurity, a continued prohibition against adultery served to keep families together.

This apparently was not an issue when the law against adultery was codified during the days of polygamy, prostitution and slavery .

In contrast to these early times, sex and sexual exclusivity eventually became linked with love, which given the evolutionary propensity in both men and women to "stray," introduced severe problems into relationships. Among these were marital strife, divorce and even, upon occasion, homicide.

Even though ancient prohibitions against adultery no longer reflect their original purpose and have been unofficially updated throughout the centuries, at their core they still reflect ancient issues.

Even so, they have been absorbed into the cultural psyche to such an extent that the vast majority of people—be they Jewish, Christian, agnostic or atheist—simply accept them as truisms.

Today, changes in thinking are being forced by the realities of this century where adultery is a fact in more than 50% of marriages.

Many couples have to various degrees been able to separate sex from love. Those who can have found that adultery doesn't justify heartache, divorce, or worse.

We can see that the definition of adultery has dramatically (and unofficially) changed over the centuries. Despite those who try to cling to ancient Judeo-Christian biblical law, but really can't, we need to reinterpret ancient laws to meet the moral needs of today.

-Ronny West