Hubbry Logo
Thou shalt not commit adulteryThou shalt not commit adulteryMain
Open search
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Community hub
Thou shalt not commit adultery
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not commit adultery
Thou shalt not commit adultery
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

"Thou shalt not commit adultery" (Biblical Hebrew: לֹא תִנְאָף, romanized: Lōʾ ṯinʾāp̄) is found in the Book of Exodus of the Hebrew Bible. It is considered the sixth commandment by Roman Catholic and Lutheran authorities, but the seventh by Jewish and most Protestant authorities. What constitutes adultery is not plainly defined in this passage of the Bible, and has been the subject of debate within Judaism and Christianity. The term fornication means illicit sex, prostitution, idolatry and lawlessness.

Thou shalt not commit adultery by Baron Henri de Triqueti (1803–74). 1837. Bronze bas-relief panel on the door of the Madeleine Place de La Madeleine, Paris

Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

— Exodus 20:14

Religious views

[edit]

Judaism

[edit]
A modern Ketubah (traditional Jewish wedding document)

The transgression of commandments is also called uncleanliness or defilement. This term is especially used of the chief and principal crimes, which are idolatry, adultery, and murder. ... In reference to adultery, we read, "Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things." (Leviticus 18:24)

— Maimonides, in The Guide for the Perplexed[1]

A Jewish wedding in Vienna, Austria, 2007

Leviticus 20:10 defines what constitutes adultery in the Hebrew Bible, and it also prescribes the punishment as capital punishment. In this verse, and in the Jewish tradition,[2] adultery consists of sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his lawful wife:

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Thus, according to the Hebrew Bible, adultery is not committed if the female participant is unmarried (unless she is betrothed to be married[3]), while the marital status of the male participant is irrelevant (he himself could be unmarried or married to another woman).

If a married woman was raped by a man who is not her husband, only the rapist is punished for adultery. The victim is not punished: as the Bible declares, "this matter is similar to when a man rises up against his fellow and murders him"; just as a murder victim is not guilty of murder, a rape victim is not guilty of adultery.[4]

If a husband suspected his wife of adultery, the ordeal of the bitter water could be performed to determine her guilt or innocence.[5] Alternatively, to enforce capital punishment for adultery, at least two witnesses were required, and both the man and woman involved were subject to punishment.[6] While cases of adultery could thus be difficult to prove, divorce laws added over the years enabled a husband to divorce his wife on circumstantial evidence of adultery, without witnesses or additional evidence.[7]

Before the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jewish courts relinquished their right to inflict capital punishment. Changes in punishment for adultery were enacted: The adulterer was scourged, and the husband of the adulteress was compelled to divorce her,[8] and she lost all her property rights under her marriage contract.[9] The adulteress was not allowed to marry the one with whom she had committed adultery;[10] if she did, they were forced to separate.[11]

Although legal enforcement was inconsistently applied, the commandment not to commit adultery remained. Adultery is one of three sins (along with idolatry and murder) that are to be resisted to the point of death.[12] This was the consensus of the rabbis at the meeting at Lydda, during the Bar Kokhba revolt of 132.[13]

The mitzvah to practice sexual relations only within marriage is affirmed by Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis into modern times.[14] They claim that sexual relations outside of marriage undermine marriage and even love itself, and also emphasize the positive role of sexual relations in strengthening and promoting love within marriage.

Christianity

[edit]
In Egypt, Joseph resisted temptation to adultery at great personal cost. Image from the Vienna Bible, 1743

In the New Testament

[edit]

In the gospels, Jesus affirmed the commandment against adultery[15] and seemed to extend it, saying, "But I say to you, anyone who looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart."[16] However, some commentators, including Thomas Aquinas, say that Jesus was making the connection with the commandment, "You shall not covet your neighbor's wife."[17]

According to the gospels, Jesus quoted the book of Genesis regarding the divine origin of the marriage relationship, concluding, "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no man must separate."[18] Jesus dismissed expedient provisions allowing for divorce for nearly any reason, and cited sexual immorality (a breaking of the marriage covenant) as the only reason why a person may divorce without committing adultery.[19] The Apostle Paul similarly taught (commonly called the Pauline privilege):

To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband ... and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, ... But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.[20]

In the gospel of John is an account of a woman caught in adultery. Leaders responsible for executing justice brought her to Jesus and asked for his judgment. Jesus clearly identified adultery with sin; however, his statement "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" did not refer to the precepts of law but to conscience.[21] Some commentators point out that if the woman was caught in adultery, there should also have been a man standing trial.[22] The law clearly stated that both parties were to receive the death penalty.[23] By not bringing the guilty man to justice, these leaders shared in the guilt and were not fit to carry out the punishment. Not condoning her adultery, Jesus warns the woman in parting, "Go and sin no more"[24]

The Apostle Paul wrote frankly about the gravity of adultery:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

— 1 Corinthians 6:9–11 (KJV)[25]

Within marriage, regular sexual relations are expected and encouraged. "The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does."[26] As "one flesh," the husband and wife share this right and privilege; the New Testament does not portray intimacy as something held in reserve by each spouse to be shared on condition. "Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again lest Satan tempt you because of your lack of self-control."[27] A stated reason for maintaining marital relations is to reduce the temptation to adultery.

Scripture itself states that Paul was unmarried,[28] but does not clarify whether he never married or was widowed. Nevertheless, they point out he realized the practical advantages of remaining single.[29] He referred to contentment in celibacy as "a gift,"[30] and sexual desire as the more common condition of people. For this reason, he recommends that most people are better off married, in order to preclude being tempted beyond what they can bear or going through life "burning with passion."[31]

Catholic Church

[edit]

Adultery refers to marital infidelity. When two partners, of whom at least one is married to another party, have sexual relations—even transient ones—they commit adultery.

— Catechism of the Catholic Church 2380

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, those who are engaged must refrain from sexual relations until after the marriage ceremony. This exercise of restraint in order to keep the commandment against adultery is also seen as important practice for fidelity within marriage:

Those who are engaged to marry are called to live chastity in continence. They should see in this time of testing a discovery of mutual respect, an apprenticeship in fidelity, and the hope of receiving one another from God. They should reserve for marriage the expressions of affection that belong to married love. They will help each other grow in chastity.

— Catechism of the Catholic Church 2350

The tradition of the Catholic Church has understood the commandment against adultery as encompassing the whole of human sexuality[32] and so pornography[33] is declared a violation of this commandment. Several other sexual activities that may or may not involve married persons are also directly addressed and prohibited in the Catechism.

Adultery is viewed not only as a sin between an individual and God but as an injustice that reverberates through society by harming its fundamental unit, the family:[34]

Adultery is an injustice. He who commits adultery fails in his commitment. He does injury to the sign of the covenant which the marriage bond is, transgresses the rights of the other spouse, and undermines the institution of marriage by breaking the contract on which it is based. He compromises the good of human generation and the welfare of children who need their parents' stable union.

— Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2335

The catechism of the Council of Trent (Part III), published in 1566, defined adultery even more strictly than at present, stating "This commandment, then, resolves itself into two heads; the one expressed, which prohibits adultery; the other implied, which inculcates purity of mind and body." Thus linking the commandment against adultery to the sin of lust in general.

Reformation and post-Reformation commentary

[edit]

John Calvin understood the commandment against adultery to extend to sexual relations outside of marriage:

Although one kind of impurity is alone referred to, it is sufficiently plain, from the principle laid down, that believers are generally exhorted to chastity; for, if the Law be a perfect rule of holy living, it would be more than absurd to give a license for fornication (sexual relations between persons not married to each other), adultery alone being excepted.[35]

Matthew Henry understood the commandment against adultery to prohibit sexual immorality in general, and he acknowledged the difficulty people experience: "This commandment forbids all acts of uncleanness, with all those fleshly lusts which produce those acts and war against the soul."[36] Henry supports his interpretation with Matthew 5:28, where Jesus warns that whoever looks at a (married) woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

— Hebrews 13:4 (NIV)

Regarding the above passage, Matthew Henry comments:

Here you have, 1. A recommendation of God's ordinance of marriage, that it is honourable in all, … 2. A dreadful but just censure of impurity and lewdness."[37]

John Wesley believed this scripture and the sure judgment of God, even though adulterers "frequently escape the sentence of men."[38]

Martin Luther observed that there were many more people in his day who were unmarried for various reasons than in biblical times, which condition increased both temptation and sexual activities that are displeasing to God:

But because among us there is such a shameful mess and the very dregs of all vice and lewdness, this commandment is directed also against all manner of unchastity, whatever it may be called; ...For flesh and blood remain flesh and blood, and the natural inclination and excitement have their course without let or hindrance, as everybody sees and feels. In order, therefore, that it may be the more easy in some degree to avoid unchastity, God has commanded the estate of matrimony, that every one may have his proper portion and be satisfied therewith …

— Martin Luther, The Large Catechism[39]

Luther neither condemns nor denies human sexuality, but, like the Apostle Paul, claims that God instituted the marriage relationship to provide for its proper enjoyment. Luther comments that each spouse should intentionally cherish the other, and that this will contribute to love and a desire for chastity, which will make fidelity easier.

Let me now say in conclusion that this commandment demands also that every one love and esteem the spouse given him by God. For where conjugal chastity is to be maintained, man and wife must by all means live together in love and harmony, that one may cherish the other from the heart and with entire fidelity. For that is one of the principal points which enkindle love and desire of chastity, so that, where this is found, chastity will follow as a matter of course without any command. Therefore also St. Paul so diligently exhorts husband and wife to love and honor one another.

— Martin Luther, The Large Catechism[39]

The so-called "Wicked Bible", printed in 1631, omits the word "not", reading "Thou shalt commit adultery." Historians are divided as to whether this was a typographical error or the attempt of a competitor to sabotage the print-run.[40]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Thou shalt not commit adultery

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
"" constitutes the seventh of the Ten Commandments, divinely inscribed on stone tablets and delivered to atop , as recorded in the books of Exodus and Deuteronomy in the , explicitly barring between a married person and anyone other than their spouse. This succinct imperative, embedded within the , underscored marital exclusivity as foundational to Israelite communal stability, with biblical statutes prescribing —typically —for violations to deter threats to lineage, , and covenantal purity. In Jewish , the prohibition targeted primarily the seduction of , safeguarding paternal rights and familial integrity against illicit unions that could obscure paternity. Christian interpreters, drawing on ' , extended its purview beyond physical acts to encompass adulterous intentions arising from lustful gazes, thereby demanding holistic fidelity in thought and deed. The commandment's enduring legacy permeates Western , where evolved from a offense—punishable as against a husband's domain over his wife's sexuality—to a broader of , though asymmetric enforcement historically favored male perpetrators only when involving wedded women, preceding widespread decriminalization amid shifting social norms.

Scriptural Origins

Hebrew Bible Context

The seventh commandment, "You shall not commit adultery," appears in the Decalogue as recorded in Exodus 20:14 and reiterated in Deuteronomy 5:18, forming part of the covenantal law delivered by God to Moses at Mount Sinai. Traditionally dated to the 13th century BCE, this event marked the establishment of Israel's national covenant with Yahweh, wherein the Decalogue served as foundational ethical and religious stipulations binding the community. In Hebrew, the prohibition employs the verb na'aph (נָאַף), a primitive root denoting the act of a man engaging in with a married woman who is not his wife, thereby emphasizing protection of marital exclusivity from the husband's perspective. This formulation reflects ancient Near Eastern concerns with preserving paternal lineage certainty and familial , as uncertainty in offspring paternity could disrupt tribal allotments and inheritance rights central to Israel's covenant structure. Scholarly analysis underscores that the law asymmetrically safeguards the married woman's fidelity to ensure legitimate heirs, aligning with broader emphases on holiness and communal order rather than mutual spousal equality. The commandment's gravity is reinforced by severe penalties outlined in the Torah's holiness codes, such as Leviticus 20:10, which mandates death for both the adulterer and adulteress, typically by as a capital offense to deter violations threatening communal purity. :22 echoes this, specifying execution when a man lies with another man's , integrating the into Israel's judicial framework to uphold covenant fidelity and distinguish the nation as holy unto . These sanctions highlight adultery's status not merely as a personal failing but as a breach of divine order with ripple effects on familial and societal stability.

New Testament Expansion

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus expands the Seventh Commandment by addressing not merely external acts but internal dispositions of the heart. He states, "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:27-28, ESV). This teaching employs the Greek term moicheia for adultery, traditionally denoting illicit sexual intercourse, while epithumia (lust) broadens the violation to covetous desire, equating mental intent with the act itself and emphasizing purity of thought as essential to obedience. Scholars note this internalizes the prohibition, shifting focus from ritual or legal observance to transformative moral renewal, consistent with Jesus' critique of Pharisaic externalism. Gospel narratives further illustrate this intensified ethic through encounters with adultery. In John 8:1-11, scribes and bring a caught in the act of to test , who responds by challenging their ("Let him who is among you be the first to throw a stone at her") and instructs her, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." This episode upholds the commandment's validity while extending , underscoring over condemnation and reinforcing as a grave sin requiring personal reform. ' discourse on in Matthew 19:4-6 invokes the creation account ("Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them , and said, 'Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore has joined together, let not man separate"), portraying and as violations of the divine one-flesh union, thereby endorsing lifelong as the covenantal norm. Apostolic writings in the Epistles echo and apply this expanded scope, linking adultery to broader sexual (porneia) and eternal judgment. 13:4 warns, "Let be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous," framing as a communal honor tied to divine . Similarly, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 lists moichoi () among those who will not inherit the kingdom of , urging believers to flee immorality as a defilement of the body as Christ's temple (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). These texts collectively intensify the commandment by integrating it into soteriological , where heart-level preserves the sanctity of as a reflection of Christ's union with the church (Ephesians 5:31-32).

Definition and Etymology

Linguistic Roots

The Hebrew verb underlying the commandment in Exodus 20:14 is nāʾap̱ (נָאַף), a primitive root denoting by a man with another man's , constituting a direct breach of the marital covenant and often carrying severe familial and legal implications in ancient Israelite society. This term emphasizes infidelity involving , reflecting patriarchal dynamics where such an act primarily wronged the , as evidenced by Levitical statutes prescribing only for the woman and her paramour. In contrast, zānâ (זָנָה) denotes broader , such as , by unmarried persons, or cultic harlotry, without the specific marital violation central to nāʾap̱. The translates nāʾap̱ with the Greek verb moicheuō (μοιχεύω), which similarly conveys unlawful sexual union with a married person, typically another's , thus retaining the covenantal without expanding to premarital or idolatrous connotations inherent in Hebrew figurative uses. In the , moicheia (μοιχεία), the noun form, upholds this marital focus, as in Matthew 5:27-28, where it denotes both physical and lustful acts against wedlock. The English "" derives from Latin adulterāre ("to corrupt" or "to alter"), via avoutrie, capturing the defilement of rather than general , a precision preserved in the King James Version's rendering of Exodus 20:14 as "Thou shalt not commit " in 1611. Modern translations, such as the NIV (1978) and ESV (2001), maintain this term for the commandment, resisting dilution into encompassing or non-marital sins, though contextual variations in prophetic literature sometimes blur lines figuratively.

Traditional Scope and Boundaries

In the , , rendered from the verb na'aph (נָאַף), specifically refers to between a or betrothed and a man other than her , constituting a direct violation of the covenant. This definition excludes premarital sexual relations, known as or zenut in broader contexts, which do not infringe upon an existing spousal bond but are addressed separately under laws governing or illicit unions. The commandment in Exodus 20:14 thus targets acts that undermine the exclusivity of the 's fidelity, as evidenced in Leviticus 20:10, which prescribes solely for such cases involving a neighbor's . The traditional scope exhibits an asymmetry: a married man's relations with an unmarried woman do not qualify as under , though they remain sinful and subject to penalties like fines or marriage obligations in cases of (Exodus 22:16–17). This distinction stems from the patrilineal inheritance system outlined in Deuteronomy 21:15–17, where lineage and descent trace through the line, rendering paramount to establishing legitimate heirs. by unmarried parties, while morally reproved, lacks the same gravity because it does not introduce paternity ambiguity into an established household. From a causal standpoint, this boundary preserves by linking biological paternity to legal fatherhood, averting disputes over that could destabilize families and clans in a tribal reliant on clear succession for and alliance maintenance. Uncertainty in fatherhood, arising from a wife's , directly threatens these structures, whereas a husband's extramarital acts with non-married women do not confound existing paternal claims. Rabbinic tradition upholds this scriptural delineation, emphasizing covenantal breach over symmetrical , though later interpretations extend fidelity expectations to both spouses for communal harmony.

Jewish Interpretations

Biblical and Talmudic Views

In the Hebrew Bible, adultery is prohibited in the Seventh Commandment: "You shall not commit adultery" (Exodus 20:14; Deuteronomy 5:18). This offense is defined as sexual intercourse between a married or betrothed woman and a man who is not her husband, reflecting the patriarchal structure where the act primarily violates the husband's exclusive rights and threatens paternal lineage certainty essential for inheritance and tribal purity. Leviticus 20:10 mandates death for both the adulterer and adulteress, while Deuteronomy 22:22 reinforces capital punishment to purge evil from Israel, underscoring adultery's role in undermining communal moral order. Talmudic literature expands on biblical penalties, specifying for involving a betrothed , as in 50b, where execution methods vary by relational status but emphasize equal culpability for participants. Conviction requires stringent evidence: must observe the act directly, having issued a prior warning to the perpetrators, creating formidable procedural barriers that prioritize justice over hasty judgment and effectively deterred executions in practice. constitutes a of kiddushin, the betrothal covenant sanctifying , paralleling Israel's to God; prophetic texts like depict national as marital unfaithfulness, with Hosea's union to the promiscuous symbolizing divine perseverance amid to restore covenantal fidelity. Rabbinic views as a profound threat to societal stability, eroding integrity and lineage verification critical for maintaining priestly and tribal distinctions; thus, Talmudic in insists on unyielding deterrence without leniency, affirming rabbinic consensus that laxity would invite moral decay and covenantal rupture akin to spiritual harlotry condemned in the prophets. This framework prioritizes empirical safeguards against while upholding the commandment's intent to preserve purity through rigorous standards.

Rabbinic Developments and Punishments

In , the codified stringent procedural requirements for convicting individuals of , mandating two qualified witnesses who had previously issued a formal warning to the perpetrators about the prohibition and its consequences, followed by direct observation of the act of penetration. These safeguards, drawn from broader capital case protocols, effectively precluded most convictions, as the in Makkot 7a records rabbinic sages deeming a that executed even once every seventy years as destructively sanguinary, with some asserting that no executions would occur under ideal judicial caution. Historical records indicate no verified rabbinic-era convictions for under these standards, underscoring their role in prioritizing acquittal over punishment to avert erroneous capital verdicts. The prescribed penalty for a married woman and her paramour was death by strangulation, a rabbinic specification interpreting biblical verses to apply primarily to betrothed virgins while extending strangulation to consummated marital as a less public form of execution. Following the Temple's destruction in 70 CE and the dissolution of the Sanhedrin's judicial authority, capital enforcement ceased entirely, shifting to non-lethal measures including mandatory —wherein a discovering his wife's was obligated to issue a get (bill of ), rendering her ineligible for to him and subjecting any subsequent children to status with restricted marital prospects. Communal sanctions such as niddui (temporary ) or herem (full banishment) were imposed for persistent moral infractions, including , to enforce opprobrium and deter recurrence in settings lacking sovereign courts. These developments reflect a pragmatic preserving marital stability and lineage purity in compact Jewish communities, where risked proliferating mamzerim—illegitimate offspring barred from endogamous unions—thus undermining social cohesion and inheritance norms without feasible lethal enforcement. Rabbinic texts emphasize deterrence through and social mechanisms, such as the sotah ordeal for suspected wives (pre-Sanhedrin), which imposed and potential curses rather than immediate death, prioritizing communal integrity over retributive severity.

Christian Interpretations

Early Church and Patristic Era

In the primitive Christian communities, adultery was classified under porneia (sexual immorality), warranting severe disciplinary measures as outlined in 1 Corinthians 5, where Paul instructs the expulsion of unrepentant offenders to preserve the purity of the church body. Apostolic Fathers such as the author of the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 140–155 AD) reinforced this by permitting separation from an adulterous spouse but prohibiting remarriage, viewing the latter as continued adultery; however, a single opportunity for repentance and reconciliation was allowed if the offender ceased the sin. This approach equated adultery with other grave sins like apostasy, subjecting it to excommunication or temporary exclusion from sacraments to deter moral laxity and maintain communal holiness. Patristic writers expanded these principles, emphasizing marriage's indissolubility even in cases of . (354–430 AD), in works like Ad Pollentium (c. 419 AD), argued that while could be tolerated for adultery, the marital bond persisted, rendering any remarriage an ongoing act of adultery that barred the parties from full church participation until penitence. He prioritized the sacramental permanence of over civil dissolution, drawing from ' teachings in Matthew 19:9 and Mark 10:11–12 to underscore that post-adultery unions violated . Though forgivable through rigorous —often involving prolonged exclusion and public confession— was seen as profoundly destructive, eroding trust and inviting on the community. This strictness, rooted in scriptural mandates, fostered discipline and ethical rigor, which historical analyses link to the early church's resilience and internal cohesion during periods of Roman persecution from the 1st to 3rd centuries AD, when moral scandals could undermine group solidarity under external threats.

Medieval and Reformation Perspectives

In medieval , adultery was condemned as a direct violation of , which defined in the (c. 1265–1274) as the rational creature's participation in , encompassing the unitive and procreative purposes of . maintained that marital reflects God's ordered creation, rendering adultery intrinsically disordered and meriting severe penalties, such as perpetual separation from bed and board without , to preserve the sacrament's indissolubility. This framework underpinned church courts' jurisdiction over marital disputes, where adultery warranted public or , reinforcing institutional authority to safeguard communal moral order against individual lapses. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) formalized marriage as a sacrament requiring public consent and clerical oversight, prohibiting divorce a vinculo matrimonii even for adultery, in contrast to earlier Byzantine allowances for dissolution. Adultery by either spouse justified separatio a mensa et thoro, but remarriage was barred, as it would profane the original bond; historical canon law records show thousands of such separations adjudicated annually in ecclesiastical tribunals by the 14th century, emphasizing penance over civil remedies. Reformation thinkers like rejected this sacramental rigidity, prioritizing scriptural and personal conscience. In The Estate of Marriage (1522), Luther interpreted Matthew 19:9 as permitting and remarriage for , arguing that Christ's exception clause overrode papal prohibitions, which he deemed unbiblical accretions that trapped innocents in abusive unions. Luther advocated civil magistrates enforcing dissolution for unrepentant infidelity, citing Leviticus 20:10's death penalty as obsolete under but analogous to severing the bond, thus shifting authority from to and state. This doctrinal pivot aligned with the Reformation's causal drivers, including the Gutenberg printing press (c. 1440) and Luther's German Bible (1522–1534), which boosted from under 10% to over 30% in Protestant regions by 1600, enabling direct scriptural engagement and individual moral accountability. Yet, empirical church court records from Protestant territories, such as and , reveal elevated divorce petitions—rising from negligible pre-1520 levels to dozens annually by mid-century—attributable to legalized outlets for marital breakdown, though rates remained low relative to population (under 0.1% per decade) due to cultural stigma.

Denominational Doctrines

The teaches that constitutes a grave offense against the marital bond, defined as marital involving sexual relations between partners where at least one is married to another, yet it does not dissolve the indissoluble nature of a valid . According to the , remarriage following while a lives remains adulterous, as separation from a valid does not permit a new union, emphasizing the permanence of the covenant irrespective of . Annulments may declare a prior union invalid , but itself provides no grounds for dissolution. Eastern Orthodox doctrine applies the principle of oikonomia (pastoral economy or mercy) to permit divorce and limited in cases of , viewing it as a concession to weakness rather than an ideal, with ceremonies for second or third marriages conducted penitentially to underscore the involved. severs the marital bond sufficiently for the innocent party to seek dissolution, though bishops exercise discretion, and multiple remarriages are discouraged as deviations from Christ's teaching on indissolubility. Empirical data indicate lower rates among adherent Orthodox communities compared to secular averages; for instance, Greek Orthodox couples in the United States exhibit rates around 14-25%, versus the national figure of approximately 40-50% of marriages ending in . Protestant denominations display a spectrum of positions on adultery's implications for divorce and remarriage, often diverging from Catholic and Orthodox absolutism by invoking the "exception clause" in Matthew 19:9, which permits divorce "except for sexual immorality" (porneia), interpreted by many as allowing the innocent party to remarry without ongoing adultery. Evangelical groups, such as certain Baptists and non-denominational churches, frequently endorse this view, treating adultery as covenant-breaking that frees the victim for a new marriage, though some Reformed traditions restrict remarriage even then to prioritize permanence. Mainline Protestants like Methodists and Presbyterians tend toward broader allowances, including remarriage post-adultery alongside other grounds like abuse, reflecting interpretive flexibility on biblical texts. Conservative voices within evangelicalism, however, argue against remarriage, asserting that divorce separates but does not license new unions, aligning closer to patristic emphases on lifelong fidelity despite the exception.

Islamic Interpretations

Quranic Commands

The Quran explicitly prohibits zina, defined as unlawful sexual intercourse encompassing both fornication and adultery, in Surah Al-Isra 17:32: "Do not go near adultery. It is truly a shameful deed and an evil way." This verse frames zina as a profound immorality (fahisha) that corrupts individual conduct and broader social structures by eroding familial bonds and communal trust, thereby threatening the moral foundation of society. Surah An-Nur 24:2 prescribes the hudud punishment for unmarried perpetrators of zina as 100 lashes administered publicly: "As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in ˹enforcing˺ the law of Allah." For married individuals (muhsan), who bear greater responsibility due to their access to lawful relations, Islamic tradition derives the penalty of stoning to death from authentic prophetic hadith, such as in Sahih Muslim, which affirms stoning as a prescribed duty for established adultery among the wedded. These hudud ordinances emphasize deterrence through visible enforcement, aiming to preserve societal order by discouraging violations that undermine lineage, inheritance, and ethical cohesion. Conviction for demands stringent evidence, typically the testimony of four upright male witnesses directly observing penile penetration, or repeated confessions by the accused, as inferred from Quranic standards in . This high evidentiary threshold, rooted in protecting against false accusations (as in 24:4-5, which punishes unsubstantiated claims with 80 lashes), has historically limited applications of these punishments to rare, unequivocally proven cases, thereby prioritizing justice over expediency.

Sharia Applications and Punishments

In , adultery, termed , falls under crimes when strict evidentiary requirements are fulfilled, prescribing fixed punishments derived from the and . For unmarried perpetrators, the punishment is 100 lashes, as stipulated in Quran 24:2, while married individuals (muhsan) face to death (rajm), a penalty upheld across major Sunni schools including Hanafi and Maliki based on prophetic . In Hanafi and Maliki , procedures emphasize judicial caution: conviction requires either the voluntary of the accused repeated four times without coercion or the testimony of four upright male witnesses who directly observed penile penetration, ensuring the act's unambiguous commission. If thresholds are unmet—often the case due to the high burden of proof—judges apply ta'zir, discretionary penalties tailored to deterrence and societal norms, such as flogging, , or fines, varying by school and jurisdiction. Hanafi scholars permit broader judicial latitude in ta'zir for zina-like acts, while Maliki emphasize community impact in sentencing. These measures aim to safeguard nasab (paternity lineage), preventing uncertainty in and family bonds, and to uphold communal honor by deterring violations that erode social cohesion. Theoretically, punishments exhibit gender symmetry, with 24:2 explicitly applying to "the woman and the man guilty," imposing identical penalties regardless of sex to reflect egalitarian . However, practical enforcement reveals asymmetries: the requirement for four male witnesses disadvantages female complainants in patriarchal settings, and like more readily implicates women, leading to disproportionate convictions in some contexts. Despite such critiques, meta-analyses indicate religiosity—proximal to strict adherence—correlates with reduced rates, suggesting deterrence fosters familial stability through lowered incidence of extramarital acts. In adherent societies, reported remains rare, attributable to evidentiary rigor and cultural stigma reinforcing causal links between enforcement and behavioral restraint.

Broader Religious and Philosophical Contexts

Ancient Near Eastern Parallels

The , promulgated around 1750 BCE by the Babylonian king , addressed in laws 129–133, mandating that if a married woman was caught in the act with another man, both parties were to be bound and drowned in the river, though the king retained discretion to pardon them; penalties were stratified by , with free persons facing while slaves might receive branding or lesser fines. Similar class-based retributive measures appear in other Mesopotamian codes, such as the Middle Assyrian Laws (c. 1076 BCE), where by a wife warranted her husband's right to mutilate or kill her and her lover, reflecting a primary concern for male property rights over the household rather than mutual moral culpability. Hittite laws from the empire's peak (c. 1600–1200 BCE) imposed punishments for that varied by context and consent, such as fines equivalent to bride-price or if the act occurred in a private setting implying , while excusing a married man's relations with an unmarried woman; distinctions between "mountain" (, lighter penalty for the woman if she resisted) and "house" () scenarios underscored a polytheistic legal framework tied to oaths before gods and kings, with enforcement often at the husband's discretion. In contrast to these royal edicts, which embedded adultery prohibitions within hierarchical, polytheistic systems prioritizing and kingly , the Biblical commandment framed the as an absolute divine covenantal mandate, transcending class distinctions and human pardon to emphasize as a relational to a singular , thereby subordinating temporal rulers to transcendent moral law. Archaeological records, including marriage contracts from sites like (c. 2500–500 BCE), reveal that fidelity norms underpinned family stability by safeguarding patrilineal and economies, with often triggering dissolution of alliances and forfeiture, as evidenced in dispute tablets linking adulterous breaches to lineage disruptions.

Secular, Evolutionary, and Utilitarian Views

From an evolutionary standpoint, adultery introduces paternity uncertainty, which has profoundly influenced and emotional responses. Males, facing the risk of investing resources in non-biological offspring, exhibit heightened toward sexual rather than emotional , as evidenced by demonstrating consistent sex differences in jealousy triggers. This adaptation mitigates cuckoldry costs, with meta-analyses estimating non-paternity rates at 1-3% in modern populations, though historical rates may have been higher due to less reliable paternity assurance mechanisms. Such psychological mechanisms underscore adultery's potential to disrupt pair-bonding stability, prioritizing reproductive fitness over unrestricted sexual access. Utilitarian analyses weigh adultery's hedonic benefits against broader harms, often finding net disutility. frequently precipitates marital dissolution, accounting for 20-40% of U.S. according to psychological surveys, resulting in widespread emotional suffering for betrayed partners and eroded trust in relationships. Children exposed to parental , typically via ensuing , face elevated risks of issues, including depression and behavioral problems, as shown in longitudinal studies tracking post-separation outcomes. These effects compound through instability, with single-parent households—often resulting from infidelity-linked breakups—experiencing poverty rates of 28% among single mothers in 2022, compared to far lower figures in intact two-parent families. Proponents of individual autonomy argue adultery enhances personal liberty and pleasure, yet this overlooks externalities like intergenerational trauma and societal resource burdens from family fragmentation. Single-parent families, disproportionately headed by mothers post-adultery scandals, confront 3-6 times higher likelihoods than dual-parent units, straining public welfare systems and perpetuating cycles of economic disadvantage. Empirical data thus support utilitarian prohibitions on , as its short-term gains rarely offset the diffuse pains inflicted on dependents and communities.

Historical Enforcement

Ancient and Biblical Societies

In ancient Israelite society, adultery was punishable by death for both the man and the woman involved, as stipulated in and Leviticus 20:10, with specified as the method of execution in cases involving betrothed women (). This penalty underscored the offense as a violation not merely of marital bonds but of the covenantal order with , demanding communal action to "purge the evil" from . Enforcement required stringent , including at least two eyewitnesses to the act itself, given the private nature of the crime, which made successful prosecutions rare absent blatant circumstances. Comparable laws in the , such as the Middle Assyrian Law Code (ca. 1076 BCE), permitted the husband discretion in punishing the adulteress and her paramour, often extending to death if caught , but without the biblical insistence on divine moral purity over proprietary rights. For instance, Assyrian provisions allowed the aggrieved husband to kill both parties on the spot or impose lesser penalties, reflecting a focus on familial honor rather than ritual sanctity. In contrast, Israelite law equalized between genders and elevated to a capital sin against , aligning enforcement with broader theocratic imperatives for societal holiness. Biblical narratives evince few documented cases of leading to execution, such as the unprosecuted incident involving King David and (2 Samuel 11–12), where prophetic rebuke substituted for legal penalty due to royal status, suggesting deterrence preserved clan cohesion in patrilineal tribes. This scarcity implies the law's efficacy in upholding paternity certainty, crucial for inheritance and kin alliances in nomadic and agrarian contexts where misallocated resources could imperil group survival. Harsh communal oversight thus reinforced marital fidelity as a mechanism for tribal stability, distinct from more individualistic Mesopotamian approaches.

Medieval and Early Modern Periods

In medieval , ecclesiastical courts held primary jurisdiction over , treating it as a spiritual offense warranting public , fines, , or ritual shaming such as processions or, in aggravated cases involving or , enforced and running through streets. Secular feudal lords occasionally imposed corporal penalties, including early medieval mutilations like severing noses or ears for women, though increasingly emphasized and over dissolution to preserve marital unions central to and lineage. By the , enforcement intensified in Protestant contexts amid feudal pressures; England's Adultery Act of August 1650, enacted under Oliver Cromwell's , classified as a capital punishable by , with particular severity toward married women to deter threats to patrilineal succession and household order. Executions remained rare due to evidentiary hurdles, but the law underscored 's perceived disruption to social stability in agrarian economies reliant on clear paternity for property transmission. In Islamic polities like the , courts applied prohibitions—encompassing —within feudal-like systems, where evidentiary requirements of four eyewitnesses rarely yielded penalties such as for married offenders, instead favoring ta'zir discretions like flogging, , or fines, while regional qadis upheld consistent moral condemnation to safeguard and imperial order. Enforcement varied by locale, with urban centers more rigorous than rural areas, yet reinforced patriarchal structures tying to risks of disputed in agrarian hierarchies. These mechanisms, embedded in feudal economies prioritizing legitimate heirs, aligned with historical demography showing illegitimacy rates below 5% across much of pre-modern and comparable Islamic societies—far lower than in subsequent secularizing eras—thereby reducing paternity uncertainty and bolstering stable transmission of land and titles essential to societal cohesion. In the United States, adultery remains a statutory offense in approximately 16 states as of 2025, typically classified as a misdemeanor with penalties including fines up to $10,000 or short jail terms, though prosecutions are exceedingly rare due to desuetude and judicial reluctance. Recent decriminalizations include Massachusetts in 2018 and Utah in 2019, reflecting a broader 20th- and 21st-century trend toward nullifying such laws amid privacy rights expansions. The 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which invalidated state sodomy bans under the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process, indirectly influenced this trajectory by challenging moral-based criminalizations of private consensual acts, prompting scholarly and judicial scrutiny of surviving adultery and fornication statutes, though direct invalidations remain limited. Parallel shifts occurred in civil law through the adoption of regimes, which eroded fault-based sanctions for by eliminating the need to prove for marital dissolution. pioneered unilateral in 1969, with all states following by 1985, coinciding with a sharp rise in rates from under 10 per 1,000 married women in the to peaks near 23 per 1,000 by the early , stabilizing later around 50% of marriages ending in . This framework diminished 's legal consequences in property division and , arguably weakening deterrence against extramarital conduct. European nations decriminalized adultery progressively from the mid-20th century onward, with key reforms including and in 1969, in 1975, in 1978, and as late as 1997. introductions, such as in the UK via the 1971 Divorce Reform Act, similarly correlated with divorce rate surges; econometric analyses estimate that unilateral no-fault provisions raised European divorce incidence by about 0.6 per 1,000 annually post-reform. Self-reported lifetime rates, drawn from surveys like the General Social Survey and comparable European polls, hover at 20-25% for married individuals in both regions, with some studies linking permissive legal shifts to normalized breaches of marital exclusivity. These trends reflect a prioritizing over traditional communal sanctions, though enforcement atrophy predated formal repeals in many jurisdictions.

Retention in Religious and Theocratic Jurisdictions

In jurisdictions governed by Islamic Sharia, such as , () by married individuals remains punishable by to death, with unmarried offenders facing 100 lashes, as codified in the country's penalties derived from Quranic and sources. Although enforcement has become rarer due to evidentiary hurdles requiring four eyewitnesses or voluntary confession, and despite 2018 reforms under Crown Prince that abolished flogging as a while substituting , the ban and potential for capital sentences persist without formal abolition. In , the 2013 Islamic Penal Code similarly mandates for married adulterers (mohsan), with recent cases including a 2023 death sentence upheld for , though international pressure and judicial discretion have led to commutations or moratoriums on public executions since the early . Enforcement variances reflect a balance between doctrinal retention and pragmatic moderation; Saudi courts issued over 100 zina-related convictions annually in the , often resulting in terms of five to ten years rather than execution, while Iran's judiciary has executed at least five individuals for since 2000, per monitors, amid broader penal code revisions that eased but did not eliminate provisions. These systems prioritize communal deterrence over frequent application, with religious police (mutaween in ) conducting raids and investigations to uphold marital exclusivity as a pillar of . In , holds no criminal status under secular civil law enacted in the 1977 Penal Code, permitting extramarital relations without state prosecution. However, for the Orthodox Jewish population subject to rabbinical courts for and , constitutes grounds for dissolving the union under , yet the husband's unilateral authority to issue a get—a bill of —enables refusal as leverage, particularly in cases involving , leaving agunot (chained women) religiously bound and unable to remarry without civil repercussions like charges. This dynamic affects approximately 1,000-2,000 cases annually, with rabbinical incentives like fines introduced in reforms to compel compliance, though get refusal persists as a tool in contentious separations. Such retention correlates with empirically lower divorce prevalence; and maintain crude divorce rates of 2.1 per 1,000 population, versus 3.6 in the United States, per aggregated demographic data, attributing stability partly to adultery's prohibitive status reinforcing marital commitments amid cultural stigma. Israel's overall rate hovers at 1.8-2.0 per 1,000, with Orthodox subsets even lower due to get-related barriers, contrasting Western trends where aligns with elevated dissolution.

Empirical Societal Impacts

Effects on Marital Stability

serves as a primary precipitant of marital dissolution, with longitudinal surveys indicating it as a major contributing factor in approximately 60% of , as reported by individuals reflecting on their experiences. This causal pathway often begins with the breach of exclusivity, which fundamentally undermines relational trust—a core element cited in 61% of divorce attributions—leading to emotional withdrawal, conflict escalation, and eventual separation in the majority of cases. Empirical analyses from clinical and survey data consistently show that discovered affairs trigger irreparable damage more frequently than other stressors, with divorce rates reaching 43-80% in affected couples depending on whether the infidelity was revealed or concealed. In remarriages following , rates heighten instability risks, with studies finding that 45% of individuals who cheated in a prior relationship repeated the behavior in subsequent partnerships, elevating the likelihood of renewed dissolution. Clinical observations link this pattern to unresolved patterns of or dissatisfaction, where prior violations normalize boundary breaches, resulting in serial that correlates with 30-50% higher breakup probabilities compared to first unions without such history. Conversely, adherence to fidelity norms bolsters marital endurance, with data from relationship cohorts demonstrating that couples prioritizing exclusivity exhibit marriage durations extended by up to 20-30% relative to those with permissive attitudes toward monogamy. This stability arises from reinforced commitment mechanisms, where mutual fidelity fosters resilience against external stressors, as evidenced by lower dissolution rates in traditional fidelity-oriented pairings versus modern or mixed variants.

Consequences for Children and Family Units

Children exposed to parental adultery face elevated risks of psychological harm, including depression and anxiety, often stemming from modeled insecure attachments and eroded trust in relationships. Research indicates that such children exhibit higher rates of internalizing disorders, with qualitative and quantitative studies linking parental to disrupted emotional security and long-term relational deficits. Longitudinal evidence reveals intergenerational transmission, where offspring of unfaithful parents demonstrate increased propensity for their own and relational failures in adulthood, countering narratives that minimize these effects as transient. For instance, empirical analyses show positive associations between parental and adult children's behaviors, mediated by learned patterns of commitment avoidance. Adultery-induced family dissolution frequently precipitates custody disputes, heightening interparental conflict and thereby odds of or exposure to abusive dynamics during transitions. Economic fallout compounds this, as divorces triggered by correlate with sharply elevated —often 2-4 times higher in single-parent households versus intact ones—disrupting stability and amplifying developmental vulnerabilities.

Broader Cultural and Economic Ramifications

The erosion of strong social and cultural prohibitions against adultery, particularly following the of the and 1970s, has coincided with measurable shifts in normative tolerance for extramarital relations. Alfred Kinsey's surveys in the late 1940s and early 1950s reported lifetime adultery rates of approximately 33% among married men and 26% among married women in the United States, figures that, despite methodological critiques for non-representative sampling, highlighted pre-existing undercurrents of even amid widespread formal disapproval. Subsequent data from the 1990s, such as the and Social Life Survey, indicated lower but persistent rates—around 25% for men and 15% for women—suggesting that relaxed cultural stigmas post-Kinsey have sustained rather than dramatically elevated incidence, while fostering greater public rationalization of such behaviors as personal autonomy rather than moral failing. This normalization contributes to a broader cultural milieu where marital is increasingly viewed as optional, correlating with elevated rates—from 2.2 per 1,000 population in 1960 to a peak of 5.3 in 1981—often precipitated by in up to 55% of cases according to clinical analyses. Economically, the downstream effects of adultery-fueled family dissolution manifest in substantial aggregate losses, including diminished and heightened public expenditures. Each incurs direct legal and administrative costs averaging $7,000 to $15,000 per couple, but societal externalities—such as , reduced workforce participation among single parents, and long-term arrears—amplify this to broader estimates exceeding $30 billion annually in taxpayer burdens alone, based on early analyses of 1.4 million divorces. Children raised in intact two-parent , by contrast, demonstrate superior economic trajectories, with causal studies attributing a persistent premium of up to 20-30% in adulthood to the stability and resource pooling in such , net of selection effects like parental . This premium arises from compounded advantages in and behavioral discipline, underscoring how adultery's disruption of units perpetuates intergenerational economic disadvantage. Cross-cultural evidence reinforces these patterns, revealing negative correlations between permissive attitudes toward nonmarital births—often intertwined with tolerance—and key societal metrics like and mobility. In diverse global samples, higher illegitimacy ratios (as proxies for weakened marital exclusivity) associate with lower total rates (below replacement levels of 2.1 in many advanced economies) and stalled , as fragmented structures strain and formation. Societies maintaining robust norms against , conversely, exhibit higher persistence and stronger correlations between intactness and aggregate prosperity, suggesting that causal chains from individual to macro-level entitlement cultures undermine long-term demographic and economic vitality.

Controversies and Debates

Gender Asymmetries and Double Standards

In biblical law, adultery was asymmetrically defined as sexual intercourse between a married woman and a man other than her husband, constituting an offense against the husband's paternity rights and familial lineage. A married man's extramarital relations with an unmarried woman, by contrast, were classified as fornication rather than adultery, permitting practices such as polygyny among figures like King David, who maintained multiple wives and concubines, and King Solomon, who had 700 wives and 300 concubines. This double standard prioritized female fidelity to ensure paternal certainty, as violations risked male investment in non-biological offspring, a concern absent in female reproductive assurance. These historical asymmetries derive from biological imperatives, wherein males incur disproportionate evolutionary costs from cuckoldry—unwitting paternal investment—due to and , rendering paternity probabilistic while maternity remains certain. non-paternity rates average 1-2%, yet even low incidences impose substantial fitness penalties, prompting evolved adaptations like mate guarding and vigilance against cues. Empirical studies confirm reduced provisioning when perceived or paternal resemblance is low, underscoring causal links between and investment. Modern data reveal persistent patterns: women initiate 69-70% of divorces, frequently citing spousal , yet the underlying asymmetries favor traditional norms over egalitarian uniformity. Shifts toward gender-neutral laws, such as expansions since the 1970s, correlate with declining female subjective well-being relative to males, as documented in analyses spanning 1972-2006, where women's happiness fell despite expanded opportunities. This "paradox of declining female happiness" suggests that disregarding biological asymmetries in favor of equity-based reforms has yielded unintended welfare costs, validating historical emphases on differential as adaptations to reproductive realities rather than inequities.

Compatibility with Modern Sexual Norms

The implementation of laws, beginning with California's statute in 1969 and spreading nationwide by the early 1980s, severed from mandatory legal penalties in marital dissolution, enabling separations without proving spousal fault. This reform precipitated a surge in rates, rising from 2.2 per 1,000 married women in 1960 to a peak of 5.2 in 1981, as reduced barriers encouraged behaviors previously deterred by evidentiary requirements and . By decoupling extramarital activity from automatic , these changes aligned with emerging norms prioritizing individual autonomy over contractual fidelity, fostering environments where faced fewer institutional repercussions. Contemporary practices like consensual non-monogamy (CNM) and polyamory, often framed as ethical alternatives to exclusivity, exhibit patterns of instability that challenge claims of equivalence to monogamous commitments. While self-reported satisfaction levels in CNM relationships show no significant deviation from monogamy in some surveys, anthropological and historical analyses indicate polyamorous arrangements rarely sustain long-term stability, with dissolution rates reportedly exceeding those of exclusive pairings—potentially doubling in certain open marriage cohorts, though data verification remains contested due to small sample sizes and self-selection biases. These dynamics suggest CNM functions more as a transitional or low-barrier phase than a robust substitute, often dissolving amid jealousy, unequal investment, or reversion to exclusivity desires. Empirical outcomes reinforce the commandment's emphasis on exclusivity, as monogamous unions correlate with superior , economic, and social metrics compared to non-monogamous variants. Serial monogamy promotes greater , lower intra-household conflict, and reduced societal costs like and , yielding net benefits in fertility control and absent in polygynous or CNM systems. data further validate these edges, with monogamy-linked households demonstrating enhanced wealth accumulation and advantages over diffuse commitments, underscoring adultery prohibitions as causally adaptive rather than relics of outdated .

References

  1. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A14&version=ESV
  2. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+5%3A18&version=ESV
  3. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A10&version=ESV
  4. https://manyheadedmonster.com/2017/10/25/the-seventh-commandment-punishing-adultery/
  5. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A27-28&version=ESV
  6. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365432329_Adultery_as_a_Crime_in_the_Western_World_and_Beyond_From_a_Man%27s_Property_to_InFidelity_from_Discrimination_to_Decriminalization
  7. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ten-Commandments
  8. https://biblehub.com/exodus/20-14.htm
  9. http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5003.htm
  10. https://academic.oup.com/book/9547/chapter/156551422
  11. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:10&version=ESV
  12. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2022:22&version=ESV
  13. https://www.gotquestions.org/punishment-for-adultery.html
  14. https://biblehub.com/greek/3430.htm
  15. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+8%3A1-11&version=ESV
  16. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A4-6&version=ESV
  17. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+13%3A4&version=ESV
  18. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-10%2C18-20&version=ESV
  19. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5%3A31-32&version=ESV
  20. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h5003/rsv/wlc/0-1/
  21. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery
  22. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/zanah.html
  23. https://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Topical.show/RTD/cgg/ID/9356/Zanah.htm
  24. https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/moicheuo
  25. http://biblehub.com/greek/3430.htm
  26. https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/moicheuo.html
  27. https://www.etymonline.com/word/adultery
  28. https://biblicalfaith.online/2008/06/12/adultery-and-the-old-testament/
  29. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+20%3A14&version=KJV;NIV;ESV
  30. https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/A/adultery.html
  31. https://www.gotquestions.org/fornication-adultery.html
  32. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/adultery/
  33. http://biblehub.com/leviticus/20-10.htm
  34. https://outorah.org/p/6088/
  35. https://africame.factsanddetails.com/article/entry-598.html
  36. https://ffoz.org/torahportions/commentary/a-new-kind-of-adultery
  37. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020%3A14%3B%20Deuteronomy%205%3A18&version=NIV
  38. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/adultery-2
  39. https://www.equip.org/articles/stoning-adulterers/
  40. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.50b
  41. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/sanhedrin-52/
  42. https://www.anthonydelgado.net/blog-1/adultery-cultic-prostitution-and-idolatry-in-the-bible
  43. https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.41a.3
  44. https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/110550/jewish/Torah-Studies-Naso.htm
  45. https://www.sefaria.org/Makkot.7a
  46. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/makkot
  47. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/865-adultery
  48. https://www.rabbinicalassembly.org/sites/default/files/public/halakhah/teshuvot/19912000/conservjud._mamzerut-_spitz_2018.pdf
  49. https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/legal-religious-status-of-suspected-adulteress-sotah
  50. https://www.churchfathers.org/marriage-and-divorce
  51. https://www.earlychristiancommentary.com/FathersScripIndex/texts.php?id=40005028
  52. https://www.anglican.net/works/augustine-concerning-adulterous-marriages-to-pollentius-1550/
  53. https://sb.rfpa.org/augustines-view-of-the-indissolubility-of-the-marriage-bond-2/
  54. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2023/05/persecution-in-the-early-church/
  55. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2094.htm
  56. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.XP_Q62_A4.html
  57. https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/441MarriageLaw.html
  58. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/5067.htm
  59. https://pages.uoregon.edu/dluebke/Reformations441/LutherMarriage.htm
  60. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1019&context=church-history-pubs
  61. https://oxfordre.com/religion/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.001.0001/acrefore-9780199340378-e-365
  62. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/context/facpub/article/2654/viewcontent/26YaleJLFeminism29.pdf
  63. https://academic.oup.com/book/26724/chapter/195571445
  64. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/eight-things-you-have-to-know-about-the-churchs-teaching-on-divorce
  65. http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/liturgics/athenagoras_remarriage.htm
  66. https://catalog.obitel-minsk.com/blog/2023/01/rules-of-orthodox-christians-on-marriage-divorce-and-remarriage
  67. https://www.helleniccomserve.com/divorceperspective.html
  68. https://theimmigrantsjournal.com/the-rate-of-divorces-based-on-all-religions-in-the-united-states-and-explanations-for-their-differences/
  69. https://www.gotquestions.org/divorce-remarriage.html
  70. https://lifesavingdivorce.com/comparison/
  71. https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/bible-divorce-remarriage/
  72. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/on-divorce-and-remarriage-in-the-event-of-adultery
  73. https://quran.com/en/al-isra/32
  74. https://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=17&verse=32
  75. https://quran.com/en/an-nur/2
  76. https://sunnah.com/muslim:1691a
  77. https://quran.com/en/24:2/tafsirs/en-tafsir-maarif-ul-quran
  78. https://evolutionofsharia.org/islamic-political-theory/
  79. http://www.pjcriminology.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/3-15.pdf
  80. https://cdn.penalreform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Sharia-law-and-the-death-penalty.pdf
  81. https://law.wm.edu/academics/intellectuallife/researchcenters/postconflictjustice/student-programs/student-international-papers/papers/clayton-zina.pdf
  82. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384682428_Ta%27dhir_in_Islamic_Law_Types_of_Crimes_and_Punishments
  83. https://al-islam.org/marriage-according-five-schools-islamic-law-muhammad-jawad-mughniyya/lineage-al-nasab
  84. https://sur.conectas.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/sur15-eng-ziba-mir-hosseini.pdf
  85. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=10678&context=etd
  86. https://www.supersummary.com/the-code-of-hammurabi-hammurabi/laws-127-194-summary/
  87. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44089023
  88. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.2307/1359326
  89. https://www.judithstarkston.com/2011/06/03/hittite-women-as-reflected-in-the-laws-of-marriage-adultery-and-rape/
  90. https://credohouse.org/blog/the-ancient-near-east-was-no-picnic-contrasting-the-mosaic-law-to-ancient-moral-codes
  91. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1145&context=studiaantiqua
  92. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=djrc
  93. https://www.academia.edu/35441066/Family_Gender_Roles_and_Marriage_in_the_Ancient_Near_East_and_the_Greco_Roman_World
  94. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/buss/files/2018/03/Sexual-and-Emotional-Infidelity-PPS-2018.pdf
  95. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19320216/
  96. https://www.michaelarobbins.com/blog/2021/09/how-many-people-divorce-because-of-infidelity/
  97. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6313686/
  98. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-economic-status-of-single-mothers/
  99. https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2024/09/single-parent-poverty/
  100. https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~jtigay/adultery.doc
  101. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1444&context=interpreter
  102. https://jewishchristianlit.com/midassyrlaws/
  103. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.2307/4132377
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271800787_Private_Lives_and_Public_Censure_Adultery_in_Ancient_Egypt_and_Biblical_Israel
  105. https://sites.up.edu/earlybritishsurvey/adultery-in-the-middle-ages/
  106. https://www.medievalists.net/2023/01/adultery-later-middle-ages/
  107. https://thehistoryjar.com/2017/08/03/medieval-marriage-ii-adultery/
  108. https://www.british-history.ac.uk/no-series/acts-ordinances-interregnum/pp409-412
  109. http://roy25booth.blogspot.com/2006/08/legislation-on-detestable-sins-1650.html
  110. https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/adultery-in-islam-and-among-the-ottomans-78608
  111. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/download/article-file/1509640
  112. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35732111/
  113. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1081602X.2020.1853586
  114. https://www.newsweek.com/map-shows-16-states-where-its-illegal-cheat-your-wife-1887307
  115. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/states-where-adultery-is-illegal
  116. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1523702
  117. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5115137
  118. https://www.cnn.com/2023/11/27/us/no-fault-divorce-explained-history-wellness-cec
  119. https://theweek.com/62723/where-is-adultery-is-still-illegal
  120. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292108000561
  121. https://www.mcooperlaw.com/infidelity-stats-2024/
  122. https://www.mondaq.com/saudiarabia/crime/1649416/saudi-arabia-laws-and-punishments
  123. https://lifeinsaudiarabia.net/punishment-of-adultery-zina-and/
  124. https://iranhr.net/en/articles/6077/
  125. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/iran-country-policy-and-information-notes/country-policy-and-information-note-zina-sex-outside-of-marriage-and-adultery-iran-july-2022-accessible
  126. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/pages/attachments/2015/09/14/sau43102.fe_.pdf
  127. https://en.hhlaw.org.il/adultery/
  128. https://www.civicresearchinstitute.com/online/PDF/DVR-2604-04-Starr-Jewish-Divorce.pdf
  129. https://www.datapandas.org/ranking/divorce-rates-by-country
  130. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic-social/products/dyb/documents/DYB2021/table25.pdf
  131. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4012696/
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8153402/
  133. https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/features/cfp-0000012.pdf
  134. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sliding-vs-deciding/201710/is-partner-who-has-cheated-likely-cheat-again
  135. https://www.du.edu/news/once-cheater-always-cheater-du-study-examines-serial-infidelity
  136. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9922360/
  137. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284068213_A_Family_Affair_Examining_the_Impact_of_Parental_Infidelity_on_Children_Using_a_Structural_Family_Therapy_Framework
  138. https://digital.auraria.edu/files/pdf?fileid=f9fb5ac8-5a4f-4566-bc34-b1dbdcbe43d9
  139. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/345313029_Triangulation_and_parental_infidelity_Faithful_parent%27s_attempts_to_make_their_adult_children_feel_caught_rumination_and_satisfaction_in_the_post-infidelity_unfaithful_parent-child_relationship
  140. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0192513X15581660
  141. https://boltonlaw.com/does-having-an-affair-mean-you-lose-your-kids/
  142. https://fldivorce.com/blog/interesting-divorce-statistics-facts-and-rate/
  143. https://helenfisher.com/downloads/articles/INFIDELITY.pdf
  144. https://slate.com/human-interest/2007/09/fifty-years-after-alfred-kinsey-what-more-do-we-know.html
  145. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/the-new-face-of-infidelity.html
  146. https://www.wf-lawyers.com/divorce-statistics-and-facts/
  147. https://jbes.scholasticahq.com/article/35803-the-causal-effect-of-growing-up-in-a-two-parent-household-on-child-s-adult-earnings/attachment/90615.pdf
  148. https://cosm.aei.org/growing-up-in-intact-families-matters-more-than-ever/
  149. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/106939710003400102
  150. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41600769
  151. https://sarahjoconnor.com/2020/07/07/the-double-standard-men-as-victims-of-adultery-prostitution-and-jesus-a-look-at-proverbs-626/
  152. https://drmsh.com/polygamy-testament-law/
  153. https://assets.cambridge.org/052184/5386/excerpt/0521845386_excerpt.htm
  154. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8604838/
  155. https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/cuckoldry-is-incredibly-rare-among-humans/
  156. https://www.toddkshackelford.com/downloads/James-Shackelford-EACB-Cuckoldry-2019.pdf
  157. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/504167
  158. https://www.asanet.org/women-more-likely-men-initiate-divorces-not-non-marital-breakups/
  159. https://affinitypsych.com/why-do-women-initiate-divorce-more-frequently-than-men/
  160. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00148-024-00981-5
  161. https://www.peterleeson.com/No-Fault.pdf
  162. https://www.aaml.org/wp-content/uploads/37-2_Article-2.pdf
  163. https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-problem-with-polyamory-a-social-scientific-view
  164. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jftr.12546
  165. https://publicsquaremag.org/sexuality-family/some-straight-talk-about-polyamory/
  166. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3260845/
  167. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10426005/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.