See under WOMAN.
Whoredom, or the act of incontinency between single persons; for if either of the parties be married, it is adultery. While the Scriptures give no sanction to those austerities which have been imposed on men under the idea of religion, so on the other hand, they give no liberty for the indulgence of any propensity that would either militate against our own interest or that of others. It is in vain to argue the innocency of fornication from the natural passions implanted in us, sense "marriage is honourable in all, " and wisely appointed for the prevention of those evils which would otherwise ensue; and, besides the existence of any natural propensity in us, is no proof that it is to be gratified without any restriction. That fornication is both unlawful and unreasonable, may be easily inferred, if we consider,
1. That our Saviour expressly declares this to be a crime, Mar 7:21-23.
2. That the Scriptures declare that fornicators cannot inherit the kingdom of God, 1Co 6:9. Heb 12:16. Gal 5:19-22.
3. Fornication sinks into a mere brutal commerce, a gratification which was designed to be the cement of a sacred, generous, and tender friendship.
4. It leaves the maintenance and education of children as to the father at least, utterly unsecured.
5. It strongly tempts the guilty mother to guard herself from infamy by methods of procuring abortion, which not only destroys the child, but often the mother.
6. It disqualifies the deluded creatures to be either good wives, or mothers, in any future marriage, ruining that modesty which is the guardian of nuptial happiness.
7. It absolutely disqualifies a man for the best satisfactions; those of truth, and generous friendship.
8. It often perpetuates a disease which may be accounted one of the sorest maladies of human nature, and the effects of which are said to visit the constitution of even distant generations.
whoredom, or the act of incontinency between single persons; for if either of the parties be married, the sin is adultery.
In Scripture this word occurs more frequently in its symbolical than in its ordinary sense.
In the Prophets woman is often made the symbol of the church or nation of the Jews, which is regarded as affianced to Jehovah by the covenant on Mount Sinai. Therefore when the Israelites acted contrary to that covenant, by forsaking God and following idols, they were very properly represented by the symbol of a harlot or adulteress, offering herself to all comers (Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20; Ezekiel 16; Hos 1:2; Hos 2:2). And thus fornication, or adultery (which is fornication in a married state), became, and is used as, the symbol of idolatry itself (Jer 3:8-9; Eze 16:26; Eze 16:29; Eze 23:37).
This word is used in Scripture not only for the sin of impurity between unmarried persons, but for idolatry, and for all kinds of infidelity to God. In Eze 16:1-63, the Jewish church is symbolized as a female infant, growing up to womanhood, and then wedded to Jehovah by covenant. When she breaks her covenant by going after idols, she is justly reproached as an adulteress and a harlot, Jer 2:20 3:8-9 Hos 3:1 . Adultery and fornication are frequently confounded. Both the Old and New Testaments condemn all impurity and fornication, corporeal and spiritual-idolatry, apostasy, heresy, and infidelity. See ADULTERY.\par
1. That among the Hebrews no prostitute, either male nor female, should be tolerated; and that if the daughter of a priest especially were guilty of fornication, she should be stoned and her body burnt (Lev 21:9); because these things, as Moses observes in Lev 19:29; Deu 23:17-18, were a great abomination in the sight of God. Further, in order that priests of avaricious minds should not, in. imitation of other nations, make crimes of this kind a part of the divine worship, he enacted,
2. That the price of prostitution, though presented in return for a vow, should not be received at the sanctuary (Deu 23:18). This law, it seems, was sometimes violated in the times of the kings (2Ki 23:7). He also enacted,
3. That the man who had seduced female should marry her, and in case the father would not consent, should pay the customary dowry, viz; thirty shekels: — in case violence had been offered, fifty shekels (Exo 22:16; Deu 22:23-29), This law appears to have originated in an ancient custom alluded to in Gen 34:1-12. Finally, to secure the great object, he enacted,
4. That any one who, when married was not found to be a virgin, as she professed before marriage, should be stoned before her father’s house (Deu 22:20-21). These laws, it must be admitted, were severe; but prostitutes of both sexes, notwithstanding their severity, were set apart in the time of the kings for the service of idols (Pro 2:16-19: A, Pro 2:3-6; Pro 7:5-27; Kings 14:24; 15:12; Amo 2:7; Amo 7:17; Jer 3:2; Jer 5:7; Joh 8:3-11). Among the Greeks and Romans of the apostles’ day licentiousness was fearfully prevalent. SEE HARLOT.
In Scripture this word occurs more frequently in its symbolical than in its ordinary sense. In the Prophets woman is often made the symbol of the church or nation of the Jews, which is regarded as affianced to Jehovah by the covenant on Mount Sinai. In Ezekiel 16 there is a long description of that people under the symbol of a female child, growing up to the stature of a woman, and then wedded to Jehovah by entering into covenant with him. Therefore, when the Israelites acted contrary to that covenant by forsaking God and following idols, they were very properly represented by the symbol of a harlot or adulteress offering herself to all comers (Isa 1:2; Jer 2:20; Ezekiel 16; Hosea 1:2; 3:11). Thus fornication, or adultery (which is fornication in a married state), became, and is used as the symbol of idolatry itself (Jer 3:8-9; Eze 16:26; Eze 16:29; Eze 23:37). SEE IDOLATRY.
This was very common among the Gentiles, which accounts for its being mentioned in the message sent from the conference at Jerusalem to the Gentiles, Act 15:20; Act 15:29; and its being so often prohibited in the epistles. The word is sometimes used where ’adultery’ is the sense. Mat 5:32; Mat 19:9. It often has in the O.T. a symbolical reference to the turning from God to idols. 2Ch 21:11; 2Ch 21:13; Isa 23:17; Eze 16:15; Eze 16:26; Eze 16:29; and in the N.T. to unfaithful intercourse with Babylon, the mother of harlots. Rev 14:8; Rev 17:2; Rev 17:4; Rev 18:3; Rev 18:9.
By: Solomon Schechter, Lewis N. Dembitz
Cohabitation between a man, married or unmarried, and an unmarried woman. While the common law speaks of intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman as adultery, followed herein by many American statutes which grant a divorce for the "adultery of the husband," the Authorized Version of the Old Testament uses the word "fornication" four times, always in a figurative sense. In the New Testament it stands for the Greek
Fornication is the same in Jewish as in the common law. It is a much lighter offense than Adultery or Incest, in which both participants are punished with death.
As to the gravity of this offense there is difference of opinion. Deuteronomy xxiii. 18 (A. V. 17) says: "There shall be no harlot ["ḳedeshah"] of the daughters of Israel." A ḳedeshah is, according to rabbinic commentators, a woman who sells herself to every comer, and stands far apart from the virgin who is "enticed" or seduced (Ex. xxii. 16). The former is liable to flagellation, as breaking a negative law; the latter is treated as the injured party, to whom the seducer must make amends; and the seducer is not liable to stripes, for his penalty is named: he must marry the girl if her father will consent.
The standard edition of the Sifre on Deuteronomy xxiii. 18 throws no light on the text; but an old manuscript of this work, referred to in Maggid Mishneh in a gloss on Maimonides' "Yad," Ishut, i. 4, says that the text intends to forbid any sexual intercourse between a man and a woman not his wife. Maimonides himself (ib.) holds that as a matter of Mosaic law both parties are liable to stripes. Abraham ben David dissents, taking the ground that a woman who gives herself over to only one man is not a ḳedeshah, but a concubine ("pillegesh"), according to the Bible (see II Sam. v. 13)—a wife without the ceremony of betrothal and without jointure (see Ketubah)—and that neither she nor her lover is guilty of any Scriptural offense. The Shulḥan 'Aruk (Eben ha-'Ezer, 26, 1) takes a middle ground, admitting that the case in question does not fall under the heading of "ḳedeshah," but asserting that, in the interest of modesty, both are forbidden by custom and rabbinical law, and should be repressed, if need be, by the infliction of stripes ("makkat mardut"). It is even forbidden to be alone with a woman in a room (ib. 22, 2).
Intercourse of a son or daughter of Israel with a Gentile, or with a foreign slave, with whom there can be no valid betrothal, is discussed by the authorities in a twofold aspect: (1) If the relation is permanent, making them in fact husband and wife, it comes under the head of fornication only in so far as Jewish law does not recognize such a relation as a true marriage; the main objection, however, arises in the religious interest of the children (see Ex. xxxiv. 16). (2) Casual cohabitation, which stands on different ground. The Mishnah (Sanh. ix. 6) names him "who cohabits with a Syrian woman" (with a Gentile, an idol-worshiper) among those whom the zealots may strike down; and while this rule, based on the example of Zimri and Phinehas (Num. xxv. 7), was rendered harmless by impossible conditions, the rabbinical courts under an institution of the Hasmoneans, attested in the Babylonian Talmud by two of the later sages (Sanh. 82a), would consider such an offender as deserving punishment upon four distinct grounds, one of them being that of implied idol-worship. This is based on the words of the prophet Malachi (ii. 11, Hebr.): "For Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the Lord which he loved, and has cohabited with ["ba'al"] the daughter of a strange god."
FORNICATION.—See Crimes and Punishments, § 3.
The free act of carnal intercourse between persons who are not married but who are free to marry. Fornication is always gravely wrong because it deprives sexual intercourse of the order which the good of the human race demands. It is a substantial inversion of an essential order.
(ðïñíåßá, and cognates)
1. Meaning of term.-(1) ðïñíåßá is used sometimes in the strict sense of ‘prostitution’ or ‘fornication’ (1Co_6:13), It is thus different from ìïé÷åßá, or ‘adultery’ (Heb_13:4 [cf. Mar_7:21] Didache, 2f.). This strict sense, however, can be retained with certainty only when the two words occur side by side. In the pagan world, while ìïé÷åßá was regarded as sinful on a woman’s part mainly on the ground that it infringed the husband’s rights, fornication or sexual intercourse outside the marriage bond or even by husbands was allowable. St. Paul (1Th_4:3 ff.) demands chastity from married men. The wife (interpreting óêåῦïò as ‘wife’ [see Milligan’s Thess., London, 1908, for opposite view]) is to be had in holiness and honour. Christian morality is contrasted with pagan in this respect. Illicit sexual intercourse with a married woman is not only an infringement of the husband’s rights, but violence done to the Holy Ghost. Christianity regards fornication and adultery alike as sinful. Cato looked on fornication as a preventive against libidinous intrigues with married women (Horace. Sat. i. 2). Cicero says it was always practiced and allowed (pro Cœlio, xx). It was defended not only as customary but as a necessity of nature. Alexander Severus furnished governors with concubines. The Cynic and early Stoic philosophers excused it on the ground that ‘naturalia non sunt turpia.’ This St. Paul combats (1Co_6:12-20). It is not a natural thing like food; for, while the nutritive system of man belong to the perishing schema of this world, the body is the organ of the spirit and the temple of the Holy Ghost, bought by Christ for His own service. To unite it to a harlot is an act of sacrilege, of self-violation, and it breaks the union between Christ and the believer.
How different this is from the lame censure of Epictetus (Enchir. 33) and the practice of Marcus Aurelius, who had his concubine (see Lecky, History of European Morals8, London, 1888, ii. 314ff.).
(2) ðïñíåßá is used also in a generic sense, ìïé÷åßá being specific. In Pauline terminology ìïé÷åýù is found in quotations from the Septuagint (seventh commandment), while ðïñíåßá is used for immorality in general (cf. Theophylact on Rom_1:29 : ðᾶóáí ἁðëῶò ôὴí ἀêáèáñóßáí ôῷ ôῆò ðïñíåßáò ὀíüìáôé ðåñéÝëáâåí). This is probably the meaning in Act_15:20, though some interpret it of marriage within the prohibited degrees (Lev_18:20). The Jews allowed proselytes to marry even with their nearest relatives, and, according to John Lightfoot (Hor. Heb., new. ed., Oxford, 1859, iv. 132), the case of incest in Corinth (1Co_5:1 f.), where a Christian had married his father’s wife, while the father was possibly still alive, arose out of this custom. This is highly doubtful. In Act_15:20; Act_15:29 ðïñíåßá is used in the general sense of immorality. We are not concerned in this article with the vexed question of what constituted fornication in the case of re-marriage after divorce. Our Lord’s teaching on this point is doubtful, owing to the absence of the qualifying expression in Mark, although the existence of the qualification in Matthew indicates that in the early Church re-marriage was allowed to the guiltless party. Whether, again, marriage within the prohibited degrees constituted ðïñíåßá is not discussed in the NT.
But from the richness of the phraseology for sensual sins we can gather how wide-spread and multiform this evil was. We find uncleanness (ἀêáèáñóßá), licentiousness (ἀóÝëãåéá) often side by side with ðïñíåßá (2Co_12:21, Gal_5:19, Eph_4:19). So often is ðëåïíåîßá found alongside ðïñíåßá that many are inclined to regard the former as itself a form of sensuality. But it is best to regard both as characteristic sins of heathendom. Others associate them psychologically, saying that forgetfulness of God compels the creature to either one or other (Bengel and Trench). The NT seems to have a genetic account of this sin (fornication) in more than one place. Our Lord (Mark 7) deduces it from evil thoughts; St. Paul from the desire of evil things (1Co_10:8), from the lusts of the flesh (Gal_5:19), and from ἀäéêßá (1Co_6:13 f.). The lists of vices, however, are not arranged in groups following a psychological order. They have their counterparts in pagan literature (see Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, p. 406ff.; and Deissmann, Licht vom Osten2, Tübingen, 1909, p. 238f.). They vary in different places. The connexion between drunkenness and vice is also recognized (Eph_5:18; cf. Test. Jud. xvi. 1). Groupings of vices and virtues early arose, arranged in connected lists for catechetical and homiletic purposes, but the order is variable (cf. Hermas, Vis. 3). There was no public opinion in paganism to suppress fornication. Hetairai moved about the streets freely, and often played a large rôle in public affairs. One thinks of Phryne and others. Religious associations sanctioned vice. The temples had their courtesans (ἱåñüäïõëïé; sec Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. [Oxford, 1895], 94f.). The cult of Aphrodite Pandemos at Corinth may be mentioned, as well as smaller cults like that of the Cabiri at Thessalonica and the Chaldaean Sybil at Thyatira. Trade-gilds (ἐñãáóßáé), which were numerous, afforded means of corruption. Almost everywhere the air was tainted, so that to have no intercourse with fornicators was like going out of the world. Christianity never formed itself into a ghetto, and so the danger of moral pollution was always present. The very fact that the pagan gods were represented as prone to sensuality had a degrading influence on ordinary morality, however much the stories of the gods may have been ridiculed or allegorized in enlightened coteries. ‘If a god does so, why should not I a man?’ (Terence, Eunuch. iii. v. 42). Ancient custom, the callosity of public feeling, the contamination of commerce and religion, the sanctions of libertine on enlightenment-all these had to be combated and overcome in the interests of purity.
(3) ðïñíåßá is sometimes used also to indicate apostasy from God-so often in Revelation. This meaning lies very near the surface whenever the word occurs in conjunction with idol-worship or meats offered lo idols. In the Apostolic Decree this thought is latent. To buy meat in the open market was dangerous-forbidden in Act_15:20, Rev_2:14; Rev_2:20, though by St. Paul it was allowed. He bases the right on the law of expediency, but he recommends regard for the weak brother’s conscience (1Co_8:4-13; 1Co_10:18, Rom_14:20 f.). The Greek Church still regards this law of meats as binding, though the Western Church followed St. Paul from early times. But everywhere fornication is prohibited. At Thyatira, as at Corinth, some defended fornication on Gnostic grounds, as Jezebel; but not only fornication but idol-meats also are prohibited by the seer. The Christians had to break away from their trade-gilds to avoid contamination; and this involved serious sacrifice. The example of Israel tempted by Moabitish women to apostasy and lust at Balaam’s instigation was a warning (Rev_2:14, 1 Corinthians 10). See article Nicolaitans. It is probable that we can understand the conjunction of fornication and idol-meats in Rev_2:14; Rev_2:20 and 1 Cor. only on the early Christian view of demonic influence acting through food and thus tempting to lust (see B. W. Bacon in Expositor 8th ser. vii. [1914] 40ff.).
2. Attitude of Christianity towards fornication.-Christianity opposed fornication in every form, not only overt acts but even lustful thoughts. There were things that should not even be named among Christians. It saw in marriage a preventive against fornication; St. Paul, though desiring the unmarried to remain as they were, yet, rather than run the risk of incontinence or the fire of lust, allowed them to marry. So strong was the reaction against impurity that St. John regards the chaste unmarried (ðáñèÝíïé) as a select group (Rev_14:4). Fornication is a sin against the body; it is a defilement of God’s temple; it is a violation of the self in a special sense; for it the wrath of God comes on men, and God’s judgment awaits it. The very beginning of sanctification is incompatible with fornication. St. Paul condenses into one sentence the Christian attitude: ‘Flee from fornication’ (1Co_6:18). It is directly opposed to God’s righteousness, and St. John brands fornicators with the opprobrious terms êýíåò,* [Note: perhaps he has in mind sodomy (ðáéäïöèïñßá or paederasty of Rom_1:27, 1Ti_1:10, 1Co_6:9, Didache, 2 f.).] ‘dogs,’ ‘defiled’ (Rev_17:4; Rev_18:3, etc.). These cannot enter the city of God. St. Paul’s dealing with the Corinthian case indicates that fornication excludes from church fellowship.
Literature.-See Commentaries on relevant passages; W. M. Ramsay, Letters to the Seven Churches, London, 1904; E. v. Dobschütz, Christian Life in the Primitive Church, Eng. translation , do. 1904; J. G. W. Uhlhorn, The Conflict of Christianity, Eng. translation , New York, 1876; O. Zöckler, Askese und Mönchtum2, Frankfurt am M., 1897; and for literature on Apostolic Age generally see Dobschütz, p. 380.
Donald Mackenzie.
2Ch 21:11 (a) The word is used to describe the wickedness of a people who forsake the true GOD, and the blessings which He gives in order to follow the attractions of the ungodly world, and of false gods. (See also Isa 23:17; Eze 16:15, Eze 16:29; Jud 1:7; Rev 2:21).
Rev 17:2-4 (a) GOD thus describes the wickedness of that which claims to be the Church of GOD as it supports and invites wicked men of the world to join with them, and to partake of their religious exercises. (See Rev 18:3; Rev 19:2).
Fornication usually refers to sexual immorality by unmarried people, whereas adultery refers to sexual immorality by married people. Sometimes the Bible speaks of fornication to denote sexual immorality in general. It regards as immoral any sexual relations outside marriage or with any person other than one’s marriage partner (Mat 5:32; 1Co 5:1; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:18; 1Co 7:2; 1Th 4:3-4). The union of a man and a woman to become ‘one’ means, by definition, that it excludes all others (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:5-6).
Sexual relations without marriage
In ancient Israel it was of greatest importance to maintain one’s virginity up till the time of marriage (Deu 22:13-21). Fornication by a person engaged to be married was treated as adultery (Deu 22:22-27; see ADULTERY). Unengaged people who had sexual relations were to marry, unless the girl’s parents objected (Exo 22:16-17; Deu 22:28-29).
These laws impressed upon people that sexual intercourse is not merely a physical activity that people may engage in for their own pleasure, regardless of other considerations. It is part of a total commitment of a man and a woman to each other in a lifelong relationship (Rom 7:2). Those who treat sexual intercourse as no more than a physical function reduce themselves to the level of animals. They deny the dignity that God has given them as human beings designed for full inter-personal relations (Rom 1:24-27; 1Co 6:13; 1Co 6:18; 2Pe 2:12).
Wrong desires produce wrong behaviour
Often fornication occurs because people, instead of trying to avoid sexual temptation, encourage it. They do not control their thoughts and feelings, and soon they find that they cannot control their behaviour (Pro 6:23-27; Pro 7:6-23; Mat 5:28; Col 3:5; 2Ti 2:22; 1Pe 2:11; cf. Gen 39:7-10; see TEMPTATION).
Human sexuality is one of God’s gifts (Gen 2:18; 1Ti 4:1-4) but, as with all God’s gifts, people can properly enjoy it or shamefully abuse it. No matter how strong a person’s sexual urges may be, the only satisfaction God allows for those urges is within the exclusive commitment of one person to another in lifelong marriage (1Co 7:2; 1Co 7:9; 1Th 4:3-4; Heb 13:4; see MARRIAGE). As for prostitution, bestiality, incest and homosexual practices, God condemns them as perversions (Lev 18:6-18; Lev 18:22-23; Lev 19:29; Lev 20:10-21; Rom 1:26-27; 1Co 6:9-10; 1Co 6:13-18; 1Ti 1:9-10; Rev 21:8).
Some people may feel no shame concerning their sexual misbehaviour and may not even see it as sinful (Eph 4:19; 1Pe 4:3-4; 2Pe 2:12-14). This may be common among people who do not know God (Eph 4:17-19; 1Th 4:5), but should not be tolerated among those who call themselves Christians. The church should remove from its fellowship those who openly reject God’s standards by persisting in shameful sexual misconduct (1Co 5:1-5; 1Co 5:11).
There will always be people, both from outside the church and from within, who, being genuinely sorry for their sexual misconduct, turn from it and ask God’s forgiveness. They can be assured that God will forgive, but they must also be assured that the church will forgive. Christians must be compassionate and understanding in giving support to those who have fallen into wrongdoing and need help (Mat 9:12-13; Joh 8:10-11; 1Co 6:9-11; 2Co 2:7; Gal 6:1-2; Heb 8:12).