Encourse Wiki

Moral Theology — Topic 14. Moral Deviations in Sexual Relations.

Properties3
tagstopic
courseMoral Theology
unitTopic 14. Moral Deviations in Sexual Relations.

41 min read

Moral Theology — Topic 14. Moral Deviations in Sexual Relations.

Adultery or marital infidelity is mentioned as a crime as early as in the most ancient legal texts of the Near East. In Scripture, the idea of the sinfulness of adultery is present even in the pre-biblical period. For example, Joseph, whom Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce, replies to her: “How then could I do such a great evil and sin against God?” (Gen. 39:9). It is noteworthy that Joseph perceives this act not so much as an evil against Potiphar—which would have been quite natural under the pagan laws of that time, which regarded a wife as her husband’s property—but as a sin against God.

An explicit prohibition against adultery (נאף, μοιχεύω) is found in all three Old Testament codes. In both versions of the Decalogue, it is stated succinctly: “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex 20:14, Deut 5:18). At the same time, in the Book of Leviticus and later in Deuteronomy, the commandment is formulated in greater detail: “If a man commits adultery with a married woman, if a man commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death” (Lev 20:17; cf. Deut 22:22). Effectively repeating the text from the Holiness Code, the commandment in Deuteronomy concludes with the phrase: “put away the evil from Israel.” Important features of the commandment are, first, equal punishment for men and women—which was not the case among most pagan peoples—and, second, the notion that sin brings evil not only into the relationships of specific individuals but into the life of the entire nation. Furthermore, the Book of Numbers contains a description of the Sota ritual (from שוטה, “straying”), which had to be performed when a husband suspected his wife of infidelity. The ritual was performed by a priest, which transferred the husband’s jealousy and suspicion into a religious-legal sphere, placing the final decision in God’s hands.

Later, in the Book of Proverbs, the warning against going in to another man’s wife is repeated many times (2:16, 5:3, 5:20, 6:32, 7:5, 9:18, 18:23, 23:27, 23:33). It is worth noting, however, that the main emphasis is placed on social, rather than spiritual, consequences. Solomon admonishes his son: “Do not desire her beauty in your heart, and let her not entice you with her eyelashes; for because of an adulterous woman, one becomes destitute, and a married woman captures a precious soul. <…> The same is true of one who goes in to his neighbor’s wife: whoever touches her is not without guilt. <…> Whoever commits adultery with a woman lacks sense; he who does this destroys his own soul: he will find blows and shame, and his disgrace will not be erased, for a husband’s jealousy is a raging fire, and he will not spare on the day of vengeance; he will accept no ransom and will not be satisfied, no matter how many gifts you multiply.” (Proverbs 6:24–35, cf. Sirach 25:2). From the mention of ransom and gifts, one can conclude that at certain points in Israel’s history, adultery could be punished by more than just the death penalty.

When considering the consequences of adultery, it is important to understand that this prohibition had two underlying reasons. The first was common to all peoples and boiled down to the fact that a wife’s infidelity called into question the unity of the family, a man’s ability to have his own offspring, and the passing on of his inheritance. At the same time, within the framework of the Covenant, adultery is understood both as a violation of marital fidelity and as a violation of the covenant with God, as the prophets Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Hosea write about particularly vividly. The people, like an unfaithful wife, “defiled the land with their blatant fornication… and committed adultery with stones and trees” (Jer 3:9; cf. Isa 57:5, Ezek 23:37); the land was “filled with adulterers” (Jer. 23:10), so that even the prophets of Jerusalem are said to have “committed adultery with the wives of their neighbors” (Jer. 29:23). Moreover, adultery is often listed alongside the gravest sins: murder, theft, false oaths, and sorcery (Hos 4:2, Mal 3:5).

The New Testament view of adultery is largely based on the Old Testament. The Savior, and the apostles following him, speak of the prohibition against adultery in the context of the second part of the Decalogue: “Jesus said, ‘You shall not murder; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; honor your father and mother…” (Matt. 19:18, cf. James 2:11, Rom. 13:9, 1 Cor. 6:9). At the same time, paradoxically, Christ is both stricter and more lenient at the same time.

First, regarding strictness, it is worth remembering that from Christ’s perspective, not only does the one who physically cheats on his wife sin, but also the one who looks at “a woman with lust,” since he “has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). Furthermore, those who divorce and marry another are also called adulterers (Mark 10:11,12). The only reason permitting divorce is the spouse’s immoral (πορνεύω) behavior (Matt. 5:32, 19:9). Confirming this very point, the apostle clarifies: “But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, and will not be an adulteress if she marries another man” (Rom 7:3, 1 Cor 7:39). This likely applies as well in cases where the unbeliever does not wish to live with the believer, since the apostle writes: “If the unbeliever chooses to separate, let them separate; the brother or sister is not bound in such cases” (1 Cor 7:15)[1] .

Second, when speaking of mercy, people traditionally recall what the Lord said to the woman brought before him who had been caught in adultery: “I do not condemn you; go and sin no more” (John 8:11). However, it is important to note that before this, He Himself acknowledged her guilt, but said to the scribes and Pharisees: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” (8:7).

However, the willingness to accept the repentant did not negate the strictness with which the church treated marital infidelity. Such relationships are doubly sinful, because they involve sin not only toward the person with whom the infidelity is committed, but also toward the one who is the betrayed party. If fornication involves the dehumanization of a person, perceiving them as an object of satisfaction, then adultery brings about an even deeper spiritual transformation. A man has a wife, a woman has a husband, and in the act of adultery, a spiritual and emotional murder of the spouse takes place, with another person taking their place. In this case, the one who spiritually kills their spouse is also seducing another person. It is no coincidence that St. Basil the Great, in his 58th rule, equated adulterers with murderers and sodomites.

In complex cases, when life with a person becomes unbearable for a reason that, from the Church’s perspective, permits divorce, infidelity should not be viewed as something permissible. Even if the fact of infidelity, years of neglect of marital duties, cruelty in family relations, or anything else is evident, honesty before God and people requires, first, the formalization of a divorce and, second, the establishment of a new marriage, which will make sexual relations in the new union possible.

[1] On divorce, see On the Canonical Aspects of Marriage: https://www.patriarchia.ru/article/98910

Several terms were used in the Old Testament to denote fornication , understood as unlawful, immoral sexual relations. The primary verb is זָנָה (zanah), which denoted fornication, debauchery, prostitution, and unfaithfulness to God (Gen 34:31). At the same time, the LXX and the New Testament use the term πορνεία, which had a fairly broad range of meanings and implied any extramarital sexual relations associated with prostitution, debauchery, and depravity in the broadest sense of the word[1]. In this context, it is customary to speak of fornication, in the broad sense, as encompassing all sins related to depravity, and of fornication in the narrow sense (fornication), which refers to relations between people not bound by the bonds of marriage.

In turn, adultery was denoted by the word נָאַף (nāʔap̄), which referred both to marital infidelity (Lev. 20:10) and to unfaithfulness toward God (Ex. 23:14). In the LXX and the New Testament, adultery was rendered by the verb μοιχεύω (Lev. 20:10, Matt. 5:27). In modern English, the term “adultery” specifically means infidelity.

There was no specific word in the language of the Old Testament to denote homosexual relationships ; they were described by the expression “to lie with a man as with a woman” (Lev. 18:22, 20:13) and were prohibited. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul once speaks of this sin descriptively: “Men abandoned the natural use of the female sex and burned with lust for one another” (Romans 1:27). And he speaks of it twice using specific terminology. In listing those who will not inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6:9–10), the apostle writes of άρσενοκοίται (active homosexuals) and μαλακια (passive homosexuals). Among the sexual sins in the Old Testament, there is a strict prohibition against relations with one’s stepmother (Lev. 20:11), incest with one’s daughter-in-law (20:12), cohabitation with a mother and daughter (20:14), bestiality (20:15, 16), incest (20:17), and sexual relations with a woman during her “menstrual impurity” (20:18).

It is clear that, strictly speaking, there is no such concept as pornography in Scripture. At the same time, there is the expression “to uncover nakedness,” which uses the word עֶרְוָה (ʕerwā h ), translated as “nakedness and shame.” In the case of Noah, whose nakedness Ham saw, there was no eroticism or lust involved, since in this instance nakedness is more associated with disgrace.

[1] Bauer, W. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament / Ed. by F. Gingrich, F. Danker. 1979. P. 693

The earliest mention of fornication as premarital sinful sexual relations in Scripture is connected with the story of Dinah, in whose defense Simeon and Levi say that their sister must not be treated like a harlot (Gen. 34:31). And although fornication is mentioned as an unworthy act, this story does not yet contain a direct condemnation. At the same time, in the story of Judah and Tamar, not only is the common word for a harlot used in reference to the latter, but also the rather rare term qdeshah , denoting a woman who engaged in cult prostitution (Gen. 38:21). As is well known, upon hearing that his daughter-in-law Tamar (?) had committed fornication, Judah orders her to be burned (Gen. 38:24). However, when he learns that he himself is the father of the child, he not only spares her life but also considers her justified. Thus, in the pre-biblical period, we can say that fornication is condemned, but there is not yet a clear-cut rule regarding how a fornicator should be treated.

Later, in the Law of Moses, several rules emerge that regulate society’s view of premarital sexual relations. For example, the Book of Exodus states: “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall pay her father the bride price and take her as his wife; but if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay the bride price for virgins” (Ex 22:16,17). It is noteworthy that the seducer is punished, not the seduced, whose sin is not assessed in any way. However, already in the Book of Leviticus there is a call: “Do not defile your daughter by leading her into prostitution, lest the land commit adultery and become filled with debauchery” (Lev. 19:29). However, here again nothing is said about punishment. Furthermore, judging by the context, it is primarily physical depravity that is prohibited, because it leads to spiritual depravity, which is called “walking in the ways of” false gods. It is no coincidence that a priest is forbidden to take a prostitute as a wife (Lev. 21:7) and, if a priest’s daughter defiles herself through fornication, she must be put to death (Lev. 21:9). However, the law states that her guilt lies in the fact that she “has defiled her father.” Another case in which a prostitute is to be put to death involves deceiving a future spouse. Thus, if upon entering into marriage it was discovered that the bride had concealed the loss of her virginity before marriage, she was returned to her father’s house, and the townspeople were to stone her to death. If, however, the husband falsely accused her of not being a virgin, he was punished and could no longer divorce such a wife (Deut. 22:13–21). Finally, there is a direct command: “There shall be no prostitute among the daughters of Israel, nor shall there be a male prostitute among the sons of Israel” (Deut. 23:17). However, it is clear from the original text that this refers not simply to sexual immorality, but to cultic pagan prostitution, which was already mentioned in the case of Tamar.

Despite rare mentions of fornication as simply something objectively existing, as in the case of Jephthah (Judges 11:1), Samson (Judges 16:1), and the women who came to Solomon (1 Kings 3:16), it can still be said that in the Old Testament, debauchery is repeatedly and unequivocally condemned. This is especially true in prophetic literature and the literature of wisdom. In the former, physical fornication is linked to spiritual fornication (cf. Jer. 5:7), while in the latter, greater emphasis is placed on the incompatibility of fornication with a happy and fulfilling earthly life (Prov. 29:3).

Given that the Lord Jesus Christ preached to people who were well acquainted with the Law of Moses and, more broadly, with the books of the Old Testament, direct condemnations of sexual immorality are almost nonexistent in the four Gospels. Only in rebuking the Pharisees’ false notions of impurity does the Lord speak of the impurity of the heart, from which sinful thoughts arise; among these, alongside murder, adultery, theft, false testimony, and blasphemy, He names fornication (πορνεία) (Matt. 15:19). The inclusion of fornication in such a list allows us to speak of it as a grave spiritual affliction, all the more so since the Savior Himself emphasizes that it is precisely these acts that “defile a person.” At the same time, His discourse regularly condemns the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, which turns out to be worse than the sins of tax collectors and prostitutes (Matt. 21:31, 32). Furthermore, the model of repentance is none other than the son who “squandered his wealth with prostitutes” (Luke 15:30).

We find confirmation of this harsh assessment of fornication in the decisions of the Apostolic Council and the epistles of the Apostle Paul. The most obvious reason for condemning sexual immorality as utterly unacceptable for Christians is the fact that the preaching was directed at pagans. However, to a significant extent, the issue was that the preaching of Christianity coincided with a moral decline, which many authors of that time wrote about[1]. It is no coincidence that, addressing former pagans and, for their sake, reducing the Law of Moses to five decrees, the apostles at the Council of Jerusalem specifically stipulated a prohibition against sexual immorality (Acts 15:29). Of course, in this case, we are talking about a group of sins related to sexual depravity in the broadest sense of the word. Most of the norms mentioned by Jesus Christ in His conversation with the Pharisees (Matt. 15:19) and in His conversation with the rich young man (Matt. 19:19) were natural even to the Gentiles, whereas the sinfulness of sexual immorality was not obvious to them and required a special stipulation.

It appears that the Apostle Paul followed the council’s logic quite consistently, speaking of sexual immorality as one of the gravest sins. Even in his early epistles, the Apostle had to devote considerable effort to denouncing immorality. Reminding them of the need to keep the commandments, he writes: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor, not in the passion of lust like the Gentiles who do not know God” (1 Thess 4:3–5). The call to obey God’s will, like the pursuit of holiness, essentially points to the necessity of belonging to God, in contrast to godlessness. By the “vessel” that must be kept in holiness, Paul likely meant the “body” (cf. 2 Cor 4:7); however, some suggest that he might have been referring to the “wife” (cf. 1 Pet 3:7). It is no coincidence that a similar call appears later: “Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled” (Heb 13:4).

From epistle to epistle, the apostle points to a series of sins or “works of the flesh,” the perpetrators of which “will not inherit the kingdom of God,” and fornication is mentioned every time in these lists (1 Cor 6:10, Gal 5:21, Eph 5:5). However, it is condemned not only from an eschatological perspective, but alongside impurity and greed, it must not even be mentioned by name in Christian circles (Eph 5:3), since it makes a person a “son of disobedience” upon whom “the wrath of God comes” (Col 3:6). The well-known case of the expulsion of the incestuous man from the Corinthian community may seem exceptional, but the apostle urges the disciples “not to associate with sexually immoral people” (1 Cor 5:9). Here he does not mean “the fornicators of this world,” but speaks of those “who, while claiming to be a brother, remains a fornicator, or a swindler, or an idolater, or a slanderer, or a drunkard…” (1 Cor 5:11, cf. Heb 12:16).

Unlike many acts whose sinfulness the apostle merely mentions, a separate theological argument is devoted to explaining the sinfulness of sexual immorality. Just as with modern Christians, he has to address this issue in a context of complete social tolerance toward sexual sins, which are perceived as “permissible.” Instead of engaging in public debate by placing fornication within the context of Roman law, the Apostle places it within the context of Christian teaching and writes: “The body is not meant for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.” The point is, first and foremost, that God has a specific plan for humanity, which includes the body as part of the whole human nature. Humanity is called to unite with the Lord, Who, for His part, took on our nature—including a real human body—to fulfill this purpose. Having become part of the body of Christ, the believer participates in His life not only spiritually, intellectually, or emotionally, but also physically, since he is a whole being in whom all these levels are interconnected. The Apostle explains the sinfulness of fornication by the impossibility of simultaneous union with Christ and a harlot, since in the latter case the fornicator becomes “one body with her” (1 Cor 6:16). At the same time, it is important to understand that the problem is not in the physical union itself, since the same union “into one flesh” of husband and wife (Eph 5:31) is perceived by the apostle as blessed and not hindering life in Christ. For the apostle, the issue is not the physical aspect, but the fact that the adulterer, as a whole being, chooses the same path as the adulteress on other levels of existence. This can involve both the selfish exploitation of one’s neighbor and pagan cults, which were often associated with adulterous relationships. It is impossible to commit adultery with the body alone; if a person commits adultery, they commit it with their soul as well. In turn, the unity of spouses is a unity “in the Lord,” since spouses share one faith and live one life. However, even if one spouse is unfaithful but agrees to live with the faithful one, their union is sanctified (1 Cor 7:14). The union with a harlot is contrasted with the union in one spirit with the Lord for a very good reason, because the union with a harlot implies not only a physical but a complete spiritual union with sin. In this sense, no other sin affects a person in this way, because in no other sin does a Christian take the body away from Christ to give it to a harlot. Thus, the apostle’s argument is primarily ecclesiological, since for him the sinfulness of fornication lies in the sinner’s falling away from the Church, as the body of Christ.

Although fornication refers to any sexual relations prior to official marriage, these relations themselves can take various forms. The primary criterion by which a distinction should be made can be considered the stability of the relationships that arise.

Based on this approach, sexual immorality can, first of all, be sporadic and unrelated to any emotional relationship. Such behavior is commonly referred to as promiscuity, that is, indiscriminate sexual relations. It is precisely this kind of sexual immorality that the apostle has in mind. The essence of this is that in such relationships, the person with whom one engages in sexual immorality is literally dehumanized. In such relationships, there is no love, no spiritual, emotional, or psychological connection; there is only one thing—a consumerist attitude toward the other person, reducing them to an object used to satisfy one’s own lust.

Second, relationships between people who intend to marry in the future—and therefore do not consider it necessary to abstain—can be called fornication. Sexual relations in this case are usually justified by the need to determine the fundamental compatibility of the partners in domestic and sexual spheres. The latter often implies the potential anatomical, physiological, and psychological compatibility of a man and a woman in a couple. When evaluating such arguments, it is worth noting that, first, the very logic of a “trial marriage” is flawed, since it clearly does not prevent divorce; as people gain experience “testing for compatibility,” they also gain experience comparing one partner to another, which undermines their future relationship. Furthermore, even if incompatibility is discovered, with the necessary effort, the problems associated with it can be overcome. People who want to test compatibility are being disingenuous, because they know that, in reality, it depends on the individual themselves what they consider unbearable and unacceptable. Finally, couples who see no point in abstaining from sexual relations until they are officially married fail to realize that the very goal of getting to know each other through such relations is not achieved. Physical intimacy carries such a high emotional intensity that all other aspects of personal behavior and experience that fill one’s life are, as it were, “submerged,” like reefs at high tide. Over time, the intensity of the sexual experience diminishes, and the characteristics of personality and shared life come to the forefront.

Third, there are relationships known as common-law partnerships. In fact, they are similar to marriage, with the difference that the partners choose not to formally register their relationship. common-law partnerships. It is worth acknowledging that the sharpness of many arguments in this case diminishes. People may have children, share a household, and be faithful to one another. They may treat each other with love, tenderness, and reverence, so that they cannot simply be accused of dehumanizing and exploiting one another. Moreover, one partner in such a relationship usually wishes to formalize the relationship, while the other does not wish to marry. The sinfulness of such relationships stems from the fact that they always imply the possibility of walking away without hindrance, leaving the partner without support and without any rights to jointly acquired property.

From an Orthodox perspective, God’s blessing and grace extend to all aspects of human life. A married couple’s sexual relationship is fundamentally different from one in which the couple is not bound by marriage but in a relationship that could end at any moment. The sense of the relationship’s transience and vulnerability in the face of potential conflicts forces one to live in a latent fear of breakup, unwanted pregnancy, and much more. A person who engages in sexual relations before marriage deprives themselves of the experience of the initial purity and novelty of those gifts that God could have bestowed upon them in a blessed union. For a couple wishing to marry after some time, abstinence can serve as a test of the values they place in their relationship: what is primary for them, and what is secondary? Why are they together?

At the same time, many authors who speak of fornication remind us that it is not limited to illicit sexual relations, and that the problem is often much more subtle and profound than it seems. It is no coincidence that, when speaking of sexual sins, the Apostle Paul lists not only fornication (πορνεία) itself, but also “impurity (ἀκαθαρσία), passion (πάθος), and evil desire (επιθυμίαν κακήν)” (Col. 3:5). All these terms may not be related to sexuality in different contexts, but in this case, they all pertain to the realm of sex. It is important to understand that such sins may not be linked to the absence of marriage as such, for even within marriage, lust and a consumerist attitude—which exclude care and consideration for one’s spouse—can take precedence, effectively introducing elements of a life of fornication into married life.

False Arguments Against Adultery __

Often, in search of easy and, as it seems, strictly scientific explanations, Christians become enamored with theories that have no connection to either science or theology. It is not uncommon to encounter arguments that a person who enters into an adulterous relationship binds themselves to a certain adulterous dark energy, as if a network were formed that connects these people. It is important to note that the issue is not only the lack of evidence for such ideas, but also the fact that they force Christians to adopt an occult language foreign to them.

In this sense, the idea of so-called telegony proves particularly harmful due to its apparent scientific credibility. The essence of this theory is that the sperm of a woman’s first sexual partner—and to some extent that of subsequent partners as well—affects her eggs in such a way that the children she later gives birth to bear the traits not only of their biological, i.e., genetic father, but also of their mother’s previous partners, and especially the first among them. Realizing that science has long since refuted the biological part of the theory, its proponents claim that all this is true, if not in the genetic sense, then in the spiritual sense of the word. It seems convenient because it appears well-founded; it requires no inner effort, no faith; it is accepted as a law of biology, even though in reality it has long been refuted.

In reality, however, telegony is not only a completely unchristian doctrine, but also simply blasphemous. The fact is that, from the perspective of Holy Scripture, Jesus Christ is the son of David. At the same time, in the genealogy that the evangelist Matthew places in the first chapter of his Gospel, David’s wife is literally referred to as “the wife of Uriah.” The Gospel explicitly emphasizes that David was not the first man in Bathsheba’s life, who later became the mother of Solomon. Thus, if telegony is true, then Solomon—and therefore Christ—is not the son of David, but the son of Uriah, which is, of course, blasphemous and unacceptable.

[1] Seneca, Letters to Lucilius, Letter XCV, 20,21; Petronius, Satyricon 126.

Traditionally, the first thing emphasized today when discussing homosexuality is the need to distinguish between orientation and its practical expression. Orientation is traditionally understood as a stable romantic or sexual attraction, which in the case of homosexuality is directed toward people of the same sex. The practical expression of orientation refers to homosexual relationships themselves. At the same time, just as orientation may not manifest in actual homosexual behavior due to religious beliefs, so too may expressed behavior be unrelated to orientation, arising simply as a result of trends. Like any consequence of the Fall, as long as orientation is not acted upon, it is not a sin, but rather a human problem and affliction, an inner sinful inclination generated by the influence of external and internal factors. At the same time, when homosexuality as an orientation is manifested in homosexuality as a practice, it becomes a sin, as it distorts the essence of sexual life and of sex itself, and violates God’s design that the love uniting two into one flesh is the love between a man and a woman.

The assessment of homosexual relationships in Scripture appears clear and consists of an unambiguous condemnation. Homosexuality is first indirectly condemned in the story of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Denying this fact, Western scholars sometimes argue that the sin of these people was pride and a refusal to show hospitality. However, first, the inhabitants attempted to rape the guests whom the righteous Lot had taken into his home, and second, the reasons for the punishment of these cities are specified in the Epistle of Jude, who described it as “pursuing unnatural desires” (Jude 1:7).

Under the law of the Mosaic Covenant, there is an unambiguous and strict prohibition against homosexual acts: “If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them” (Lev. 20:13). The Old Testament view of homosexual practices is vividly illustrated by the story of a Levite who lived on the slopes of Mount Ephraim. When he came to the town of Gibeah, “the men of the town, a lewd crowd, surrounded the house, pounded on the doors, and said to the old man, the owner of the house: ‘Bring out the man who came into your house, so we may have our way with him. The owner of the house went out to them and said to them, ‘No, my brothers, do not do this evil; since this man has come into my house, do not commit this folly…’” (Judges 19:22,23).

The Gospel texts contain no explicit mention of homosexuality, just as they contain no mention of most sins related to sexual immorality. Due to the strict prohibition against such acts in the Old Testament, there was a general consensus on the matter among the people. However, Jesus Christ mentions Sodom and Gomorrah in the context of condemning grave sin (Matt. 10:15). At the same time, as soon as the preaching of the Gospel began to spread among the Gentiles, for whom sexual prohibitions were practically nonexistent, it clearly contained stern condemnations of homosexuality. It is no coincidence that one of the earliest references to this sin is connected with an appeal to former pagans not to be deceived by false hopes and to remember that “neither the effeminate (μαλακοι) nor the male prostitutes (αρσενοκοιται) … will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9, cf. 1 Tim 1:10). To be fair, it is worth noting that there is some debate regarding the terms used by the apostle. For example, despite the Russian-language tradition of translating the Greek μαλακος as “sodomites,” modern scholars argue that this term was used to refer to a passive homosexual[1]. In turn, the term ἀρσενοκοῖται, which some interpret as ritualistic and pagan, appears for the first time in all of Greek literature and combines two words that translate literally as “lying with a man.” Presumably, these words may be taken from the aforementioned commandment in the Book of Leviticus, which explicitly forbids “lying with a man.”

The Apostle Paul provides the most detailed explanation of the nature of sin, including homosexual relations, in the first chapter of his Epistle to the Romans. According to him, by rejecting God, people became futile, lost their reason, and began to imitate not “the incorruptible God,” but corruptible humans and even animals. For this, “God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies were defiled” (1:24), so that “their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; likewise, the men, abandoning the natural use of the female sex, burned with passion for one another, men committing shameful acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error” (1:26–27). Modern historians of ancient Roman culture are well aware that the apostle is not exaggerating in this case and that such sins were indeed widespread. It is noteworthy that, unlike in many other situations, the apostle appeals to God-created nature itself, to the very essence against which sinners act. Such unnaturalness was also emphasized by later church tradition. For example, while St. Basil the Great, comparing homosexual sins to adultery, idolatry, or murder, deemed it necessary in Canons 7 and 62 to excommunicate the offender from communion for 15 years, St. Gregory of Nyssa, emphasizing “contrary to nature,” in Rule 4, extended the period of excommunication to 18 years.

In today’s world, attitudes toward homosexuality have softened considerably under the influence of the very same processes that have liberalized sexual relations in general. Historically, the perception of homosexual relationships has gone through several stages. From unequivocal condemnation as a sin within the framework of Old Testament and Christian morality, through the perception of it as an illness that must be treated, to an innate anomaly that can only be met with compassion. However, while some Protestant denominations, seeking to keep up with the times, are changing their moral doctrines, the teaching of the Orthodox Church remains unchanged, and homosexual relationships are regarded therein as a grave sin.

Some authors believe that this sin is graver because it is characterized in the Old Testament as an “abomination.” However, the word תוֹעֵבָה (toʿebah), which indeed means abomination—as something repulsive and unacceptable to God—is used in Old Testament texts more than 170 times for a wide variety of reasons. For example, idolatry (Exod. 8:26), ritual defilement (Isa. 1:13), social injustice (Prov. 11:1; Micah 6:10–11), sexual perversions (Deut. 22:5), pride, and evil thoughts (Prov. 3:32). In fact, anything that corrupts society and destroys the covenant is called an abomination. In this sense, homosexuality is one of the sins, and its assessment must be based on theology, not on culture. This is precisely why Paul lists this sin among the sins that are obstacles to the Kingdom of God, but does not actually speak of it as something separate. In this list are idolatry, adultery, theft, and drunkenness… A physiological basis can be cited for each of these actions or states simply because, having been distorted after the Fall, human nature is, in one way or another, flawed. All the maladies of our nature, all our passions, are tragic and deeply sorrowful, just as every sin is sorrowful and tragic. But despite all the horror of the drunkard, whose life turns into a nightmare due to his powerlessness in the face of his own body and psyche, it is impossible to regard alcoholism as a form of health. The example of alcoholism is also apt because a passion for another man’s wife may pass, as any obsession does, but alcoholism remains forever. There are no cured alcoholics; there are only those who, through constant effort of will, resist their body’s “cravings,” keeping it in check despite any internal suffering. The same logic must be applied to homosexual orientation.

[1] Barrett C. K. A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: A & C Black, 1968. P. 104.

  • Sexual Deviations from the Perspective of Scripture
  • Definition of Terms
  • Fornication
  • Adultery
  • Homosexual Relationships
  • Pornography

As mentioned earlier, the biblical worldview does not recognize pornography. At the same time, in our day, the obsession with it is quite comparable to a pandemic. For example, the percentage of adults who watch pornography at least occasionally in the U.S. is 61%[1] , the global market size is $71.6 billion[2], and the number of viewers is constantly growing. The problem associated with pornography can be divided into two components, as there are those who seek out and consume this content and those who produce it. The former is linked to the desire to satisfy lust, the latter to the desire to lead people into temptation through the creation of lewd images. The latter is often linked to drawing people into all manner of sexual sins.

The Old Testament contains no explicit condemnation of what we today commonly refer to as pornography; however, it does include the phrase “to uncover nakedness” (Lev. 18:6–18), which can refer both to sexual relations and to the indirect humiliation of the person whose nakedness is exposed in the process. It is clear that marital relations were the norm, and the nakedness of husband and wife was viewed as natural (Song of Songs 4:1–6). However, unlawful “uncovering of nakedness” was often punishable by death. It is noteworthy that in Scripture, fascination with visual imagery is often associated with temptation. For example, “the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they took them as wives” (Gen. 6:2), which ultimately led people to forget God. David, who saw Bathsheba and was captivated by her beauty, killed Uriah and took her as his wife (2 Sam. 11:2–4). It is noteworthy that Solomon, in the book of Proverbs, exhorts his son: “Let your eyes look upon what is right” (Prov. 4:25) and later speaks of the adulterous woman: “Do not desire her beauty in your heart” (Prov. 6:25). Similarly, Job speaks of the importance of guarding one’s gaze: “I have made a covenant with my eyes, that I might not look upon a maiden” (Job 31:1).

Along with the condemnation of lustful glances, Scripture also contains a rebuke of harlots and adulteresses who seduce the righteous. Of course, the book of Proverbs does not speak of obscene images, but it does describe seduction itself quite vividly: “And behold, a woman comes to meet him [the foolish young man], dressed as a harlot, with a deceitful heart, boisterous and unrestrained; her feet do not stay at home: she is in the streets and in the squares, and at every corner she sets her snares” (Prov. 7:10–12). Moreover, according to Solomon, such a woman sees no sin in her actions: “Such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eats and wipes her mouth, and says, ‘I have done nothing wrong’” (Prov. 30:20).

Similarly, the New Testament condemns both those who are tempted and those who tempt others. It all begins, of course, with the desire of the one who is consumed by lust. Of such people, the Savior says: “Anyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matt. 5:28). By affirming the sinfulness of adultery, He elevates it from the physical realm to the spiritual and mental realms. At the same time, the physical realm has never been denied by Christians. It is no coincidence that the Apostle Paul called the body “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 6:19). At the same time, the Lord speaks of those who lead others into temptation: “Woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes” (Matt 18:7, Luke 17:1-2).

Thus, both the request for and use of pornographic content, as well as the creation of such content, are sinful. The latter is sinful, first, as immoral in itself, and second, as leading to temptation. Furthermore, it is well known that the production of pornography is linked to the criminal exploitation of psychologically unstable and often addicted individuals who find themselves in difficult life situations. Given that “demand creates supply,” the words of the apostle apply to all who create and use pornographic content: “Those who practice such things deserve death; and not only those who do them, but also those who approve of those who do them” (Romans 1:32). Of course, this refers to spiritual death, since fornication and adultery are mortal sins. It is no coincidence that Rule 100 of the Council of Trullo states: “Images that captivate the gaze—whether depicted on panels or in any other form—corrupt the mind and incite lust for shameful pleasures; we hereby decree that from now on they are to be drawn under no circumstances and in no way. If anyone attempts to do so, let him be excommunicated”.

Reflecting on the harm of lewd spectacles, which in antiquity were often associated with the theater, St. John Chrysostom writes: “When the spectacle ends, when she has already left, her image, her words, her clothes, her glances, her gait, her grace, her agility, her adulterous limbs remain in your soul, and you leave, having received many wounds. Is this not the source of disorder in the home? …Is this not the cause of broken marriages? …For when you, preoccupied and captivated by her, come home, your wife seems less pleasing to you, and your children unbearable… The reason for this is that you return home not alone, but bring with you a harlot, who does not enter openly and plainly—which would be more bearable, for your wife would immediately drive her out—but who sits in your soul and in your consciousness, and kindles within you a Babylonian flame, and even a much stronger one: for the fuel of this flame is not brushwood, oil, and pitch, but the aforementioned; and everything within you falls into disorder…”[3].

The saint’s remarks are very profound and interesting, because, in essence, he anticipates in them the arguments being developed by contemporary authors. Without addressing the actors’ fornication, since this sin has already been discussed above, it is important to speak of the sinful consequences to which pornography leads.

First, it distorts perceptions of sexual relations themselves, which for Christians are possible only within marriage. By creating an illusion regarding human bodies and the sexual availability of those around us, pornography makes the real world less attractive. At the same time, what is known as the instrumentalization of the human person occurs, as the person is reduced to a means of satisfying lust. Treating a person as an object implies that the object can be bought, exchanged, discarded as unnecessary, or destroyed if it gets in your way. Pornography destroys marriages because it creates a false image of social relationships and a false image of beauty; by using filters and editing tools, it shapes actors into a form that is accepted as the standard. By becoming accustomed to forms perceived as the standard, porn addicts become disappointed in spouses who do not conform to these new stereotypes.

Furthermore, the demands arising from porn addiction no longer align with normal human relationships, because people become slaves to a sexual ideology in which sexual relationships take on an excessive significance that is not natural to them. This occurs as a result of what is called “moral decline.” This phenomenon implies that a person gradually changes their preferences: they lose interest in normal relationships and seek out more extreme and harmful ones. Attachment to such things destroys their normal relationships with other people. They can no longer enter into a conventional marriage because they have little interest left in normal relationships involving romance, love, and tenderness. Finally, it has been experimentally proven that men who watch pornography for a long time become more violent toward women.

Thus, after analyzing Christian teaching on fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and pornography, we can acknowledge that the Church unequivocally and with the utmost severity condemns and prohibits all such sins and sexual deviations, urging us to remember that the sexual sphere of life for Christians can be realized only within marriage.

[1] <https://www.christianitytoday.com/pastors/preaching/sermon- illustrations/porn-use-soars-among-unconcerned-christians/>

[2] <https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/6005580/adult-entertainment- market- report?srsltid=AfmBOory9km8L-H9n_wvfUpgZJ9fxnEoFeAsx1L605WodaNSSr4MfLsb>

[3] St. John Chrysostom. Homily Against Spectacles. 2-3.

Discussing moral behavior in the realm of sexual relations today is extremely difficult for several reasons. First, there is the aforementioned shift in the perception of sin, which in a secular understanding has come to be viewed as a vice assessed by the harm caused by a person to themselves or another. Within the humanistic approach, there is no objective concept of sin, and the absence of visible harm leads to a rejection of the prohibition. Second, the Christian paradigm regarding gender relations has been dismantled, so that the traditional worldview is now perceived as fundamentally outdated. The reasons for these changes in gender relations can be seen both in the rejection of the Christian view of humanity and the purpose of human life, and in the development of medical technologies. The latter refers to the development of contraceptives, which has made it possible to separate the sphere of sexual relations from that of procreation. In this regard, it is important to understand that the Church’s position is significant primarily for those who regard the Church’s opinion as authoritative. Furthermore, theological arguments can be supplemented by medical and psychological ones, as the latter are of great importance to modern people. This is all the more significant given that, according to WHO data, more than 1 million people aged 15–49 contract treatable sexually transmitted infections every day[1]. Year after year, these figures are rising despite preventive measures, which allows us to recognize the safety of promiscuous relationships as a myth that is not confirmed in practice.

Speaking from a Christian perspective, it is important to remember that the Church is grounded in a holistic anthropology and, following Sacred Scripture, recognizes the importance of the body in a person’s spiritual and moral life. This, in turn, means that the life of the body cannot be viewed separately from the life of the spirit, as taught by the Antitactics, Carpocratians, and certain other Gnostics. From a Christian perspective, only two paths are permissible in the realm of sexuality: marriage, which includes sexual relations, and celibacy, which involves abstinence. In other words, sexual relations find their meaning and are approved only within marriage, as a monogamous union between a man and a woman[2].

At the same time, one cannot agree with those theologians who recognize as marriage only a union that has received the church’s blessing. The experience of the early Christians shows that a marriage entered into before one of the spouses converted to Christianity could be preserved if the non-believer himself agreed to remain with the believer. In such a case, the believer was not to leave the unbeliever, for “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the believing wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband” (1 Cor. 7:14). Traditionally, sanctification is understood not as salvation, which obviously depends on personal choice, but as the work of grace, which, being present in the lives of believers, influences those around them. It is no coincidence that the apostle emphasizes: “otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy” (1 Cor. 7:14). Finally, in such a marriage, Paul even sees a missionary perspective and an opportunity for the believing spouse to contribute to the salvation of the unbeliever (1 Cor. 7:16). However, if the unbeliever wants a divorce, the believer cannot hold them back and becomes free themselves. In this case, as in the case of the death of one of the spouses, the apostle affirms the possibility of a new marriage. However, this marriage must be entered into with a Christian or, as the apostle says, “only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39).

Thus, by virtue of recognizing civil marriage, Christians did not and do not consider secular marriage to be fornication, since it contains within itself—albeit not in its fullness—the love, responsibility, and willingness to sacrifice that are characteristic of a full Christian marriage, and also serves as a deterrent against infidelity. At the same time, the Church has never considered civil and church marriages to be identical. Of course, marriage in the sense in which God intended it must meet higher standards than those required of ordinary marriage in a secular state. And yet, among what might be called sexual deviations, there are fornication, adultery, pornography, and non-traditional sexual relationships.

In Holy Scripture, as well as later in the Tradition of the Church, sins of fornication were regarded as among the most problematic due to their obscurity to pagans. It is no coincidence that, in admonishing the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul urged them: “Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals… will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Cor 6:9).

[1] <https://www.who.int/ru/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/sexually-transmitted- infections-> (stis)

[2] Breck, J., Prot. The Sacred Gift of Life.

Graph View

Backlinks