The Surprising Reason Luke Removed Atonement from His Gospel (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 174 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

Episode 174 of Misquoting Jesus explores a striking and often overlooked difference between the Gospels of Mark and Luke: Luke appears to reject the idea that Jesus’ death was an atoning sacrifice for sins. Bart Ehrman argues that while Mark presents Jesus’ death as a ransom paid on behalf of humanity, Luke systematically removes or reshapes those passages when rewriting Mark’s Gospel.

The episode explains the doctrine of atonement in accessible terms before diving into specific examples. Ehrman highlights how Luke edits Mark 10:45, removes sacrificial language from the Last Supper tradition, and reframes the crucifixion itself. In Mark, Jesus’ death opens access to God through sacrifice; in Luke, Jesus dies as an innocent victim whose unjust execution should move people to repentance.

A major focus is Luke 22:19–20, where some manuscripts contain explicit atonement language (“given for you” and “shed for you”). Ehrman argues these verses were later additions inserted by scribes because they contradict Luke’s broader theology and are absent from some of the earliest manuscripts.

The conversation ultimately raises larger theological questions: Does God require sacrifice to forgive sins, or does repentance alone restore people to God? Ehrman suggests Luke’s theology may actually be closer to the teachings of the historical Jesus than the sacrificial theology found in Paul and Mark.

The bonus Q&A covers whether Jesus could read and write, what language Jesus and Pilate likely spoke during the trial, and why scholars still use the traditional Gospel names Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!

insert title (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 187 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

In this episode of the Misquoting Jesus podcast, Bart Ehrman reflects on five major Christian beliefs he once held as an evangelical fundamentalist but no longer accepts after decades of biblical scholarship and personal reflection. He begins by recounting his journey from a born-again teenager attending Moody Bible Institute to becoming a mainstream Christian scholar and eventually leaving the faith altogether.

The conversation explores the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, including the belief that the original manuscripts of scripture contained no contradictions or factual errors. Bart explains how studying textual criticism and the historical context of biblical writings gradually changed his perspective. He also discusses Old Testament “prophecies” supposedly predicting Jesus, arguing that many passages—such as Isaiah 53—were later interpreted christologically rather than originally written about a future messiah.

The episode then shifts to salvation and hell, examining Bart’s former belief that non-Christians would face eternal punishment. He candidly discusses the emotional and intellectual difficulties this created, especially concerning people who had never heard of Jesus. The discussion also touches on apocalyptic expectations about Jesus returning within the current generation and how failed end-times predictions repeatedly reshape themselves.

Finally, Bart explains one of the most significant conclusions of his scholarly career: that Jesus and Paul taught fundamentally different views of salvation. Jesus emphasized repentance and divine forgiveness, while Paul centered salvation on atoning sacrifice through Christ’s death.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!

Is the Trinity Really in the Bible? (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 186 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

Episode 186 explores one of Christianity’s most foundational and controversial doctrines: the Trinity. Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis examine whether the doctrine—that God exists as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all equally divine yet still one God—is actually taught in the Bible or developed later through theological interpretation.

The discussion begins by distinguishing between simply finding references to the Father, Son, and Spirit in the New Testament versus finding the formal doctrine of the Trinity itself. Ehrman explains that while the New Testament contains all three figures, it never explicitly states the later orthodox formulation established in the fourth century. The episode walks through competing early Christian views, including modalism and Arianism, and explains why theologians struggled to reconcile Jesus’ divinity with strict monotheism.

A major focus is the Gospel of John, where Jesus speaks far more openly about his divine identity than in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Ehrman argues that the historical Jesus likely did not teach the doctrine of the Trinity or claim to be God in the later orthodox sense. The conversation also examines the famous passage in 1 John 5:7–8, often cited as the clearest biblical proof of the Trinity, and explains why most scholars believe the key Trinitarian wording was added centuries later.

The bonus Q&A covers the Holy Spirit in early Christianity, James the brother of Jesus, Aramaic phrases in Mark’s Gospel, and modern evangelical end-times beliefs connected to Revelation and 2 Thessalonians.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!

Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin in the Bible?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Is sex before marriage a sin in the Bible? It’s one of the most common moral and religious questions people ask, and one that continues to generate strong opinions across churches, families, and cultures. 

A recent survey found that nearly half of the U.S. Christians say that casual sex between consenting adults is sometimes or always acceptable. It’s a striking reminder that Christian attitudes toward sexuality are far from uniform.

That diversity of opinion reflects not only changing social norms, but also centuries of interpretation, theological reflection, and debate within traditions that all claim the Bible as their foundation. It also brings us back to a more basic question: what does the Bible say about sex before marriage?

At first glance, many readers assume the Bible must offer a simple yes-or-no answer. But the issue is more complicated than that.

The modern category of “premarital sex” doesn’t map neatly onto the social world of the Bible. In ancient Israel and the Greco-Roman world, marriage wasn’t primarily understood as a private romantic choice between two individuals. Instead, it was a legal, familial, and economic institution involving inheritance, household structure, and social honor. 

Questions of virginity, betrothal, adultery, and sexual conduct were therefore tied to family obligations and communal stability as much as to personal morality.

In this article, we’ll look at several of the most important biblical passages that are often brought into discussions of sex before marriage, beginning with laws in the Old Testament and then turning to New Testament texts, especially Paul’s discussions of sexual morality.

We will also briefly examine whether Jesus addressed the issue directly and how later religious traditions (including Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestantism, Judaism, and Islam) have interpreted these texts. As we will see, the Bible doesn’t offer a simple modern answer, but it does provide the foundation for the debates that continue today.

Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin in the Bible? Old Testament Verses

In the Introduction à l'Ancien Testament (Introduction to the Old Testament), Martin Rose writes:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

This observation is especially important when approaching moral and legal questions in Deuteronomy. 

Because the book preserves legal traditions shaped through long processes of transmission and reinterpretation, its laws shouldn’t be read as isolated prooftexts detached from their ancient social setting. 

Given both the extraordinary importance of Deuteronomy and its character as a text containing legal provisions for ancient Israel, it’s not surprising that one of the passages often connected today with the question of whether sex before marriage is a sin in the Bible appears here.

But before drawing modern conclusions, we must first ask what the law was actually regulating within its original historical context. Where does it say what the legal framework was? 

Deuteronomy 22:13–21 addresses the case of a husband who, after consummating his marriage, turns against his wife and accuses her of not having been a virgin at the time of marriage. At first glance, the passage may appear to be a straightforward moral condemnation of premarital intercourse.

Yet, as Anthony Phillips explains in his Commentary on Deuteronomy, the legal issue isn’t primarily divorce, but the husband’s attempt to recover the bride-price he had paid to his father-in-law. 

His claim is that the father accepted payment for a daughter who was not, in legal and social terms, marriageable as a virgin. The case therefore concerns not only sexual conduct, but also property, contractual obligation, and family honor.

If the accusation proves false, the husband is punished severely. He must pay substantial damages (Phillips notes that this is technically compensation for slander rather than a criminal fine) to the girl’s father, and he permanently loses the right to divorce his wife. 

Moreover, Peter C. Craigie, in his Commentary on Deuteronomy, emphasizes that the legal responsibility for defending the woman rests with her parents because, by giving her in marriage, they had publicly represented her as qualified for it. The husband’s false accusation therefore damages not only the woman’s reputation, but also the honor of her entire household.

If, however, the accusation is true, the consequences are far more severe. Namely, the woman is executed for what the text calls “fornication in her father’s house.” Craigie notes that this phrase doesn’t necessarily mean the act occurred literally inside the house, but that the offense took place while she was still under her father’s authority, before marriage.

The issue isn’t simply that sexual intercourse occurred before the wedding, but that she entered marriage under false representation and brought disgrace upon her family and, in Deuteronomy’s language, upon Israel itself.

Phillips goes even further, arguing that the later Deuteronomic formulation treats such a woman as an adulteress, extending the category beyond intercourse with a married woman to include loss of virginity discovered at marriage.

In this framework, virginity is inseparable from patriarchal authority, inheritance, and the stability of the covenant community.

This means that Deuteronomy doesn’t ask the modern question in modern terms. It’s not offering an abstract theological statement about consensual premarital relationships between autonomous individuals.

Rather, it legislates within a patriarchal world where marriage was a legal and economic institution involving bride-price, paternal authority, legitimacy of heirs, and communal honor.

In other words, the text clearly treats sexual relations before marriage as a serious matter, but its rationale is rooted less in modern notions of personal sexual morality and more in covenantal order and household integrity.

To see how similar concerns appear elsewhere in the Pentateuch, we should also turn to another important Old Testament text which comes from the Book of Exodus.

What Does the Bible Say About Sex Before Marriage? Book of Exodus

For most readers, the Book of Exodus is best known through the dramatic story of Moses, Pharaoh, and the parting of the Red Sea. A narrative so influential that it has inspired generations of historians and archaeologists to ask whether some historical memory lies behind it. 

Yet Exodus is far more than a story of liberation. It’s also a foundational legal and theological text, preserving what scholars often call the “Book of the Covenant,” a collection of laws that shaped Israel’s understanding of daily life under covenant with God.

It’s therefore not surprising that one of the passages most often connected to the question of whether the sex before marriage is a sin in the Bible appears not in a sermon or prophetic oracle, but in a legal provision. Where does it say what the details were? 

“When a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged to be married and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16–17)

At first glance, modern readers may expect the text to function as a straightforward moral prohibition. But, as with Deuteronomy, the historical-critical task requires us to ask what social problem the law is actually trying to regulate.

In her Commentary on Exodus, Carol Meyers notes:

This broader social framework is essential. Marriage in ancient Israel was primarily a familial, economic, and communal arrangement.

Within that framework, Exodus 22:16–17 doesn’t focus first on the morality of sexual desire itself, but on the consequences of sexual intercourse for marriageability and household relations.

Meyers also points out that the Hebrew term often translated “virgin” (betulah) can be misleading, since it often refers more generally to a young woman of marriageable age and does not always function as a precise biological term. 

The law concerns an unbetrothed woman, meaning she is not already legally promised to another man, which would raise the issue of adultery. Instead, the concern is that sexual intercourse outside marriage alters the social and economic conditions under which her father could arrange a proper marriage.

As John I. Durham explains in his Commentary on Exodus, the man who seduces such a woman has “compromised her father’s opportunity to arrange a marriage for her,” and, for that reason, he must pay the bride-price and marry her. 

Durham stresses that the primary focus of the law is financial, both with regard to the father and to the woman herself. 

The bride-price wasn’t simply the “purchase” of a wife, but compensation acknowledging her transfer from one household to another and the social obligations that accompanied that move. If the father judged the proposed marriage unsuitable, he retained the right to refuse it. And even then, the man was still required to pay compensation equal to the marriage price.

This makes the legal logic of the passage much clearer. Exodus isn’t presenting a timeless abstract doctrine about premarital sex in modern terms, nor is it simply asking whether sexual intercourse before a wedding ceremony is sinful in itself. 

Rather, it regulates a concrete social situation within a patriarchal covenant community where marriage, inheritance, paternal authority, and family alliances were deeply intertwined. In that context, sexual relations before marriage were serious because they affected the honor, stability, and economic integrity of the household.

With that Old Testament background in view, we can now move beyond Israelite law and turn to the New Testament, where the question is framed less in terms of household regulation and more in terms of holiness, the body, and the moral life of early Christians.

Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin in the Bible: The Evidence from the New Testament

Is sex before marriage a sin in the Bible from the perspective of the New Testament, and if so, where does it say that? We first have to look closely at one of the most frequently cited passages in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians. 

Unlike the legal materials of Deuteronomy and Exodus, the New Testament doesn’t usually approach sexual ethics through civil regulations about marriage arrangements, bride-price, or paternal authority. 

Instead, Paul frames the issue in theological terms. Namely, the holiness, the body, and the believer’s relationship to Christ. That shift in perspective makes 1 Corinthians especially important for understanding how early Christians thought about sexual conduct.

The letter of 1 Corinthians is a fairly representative example of the Pauline epistles. We know both from Paul’s own letters and from Acts that he spent a significant amount of time in Corinth, establishing a Christian community there. 

The city was located on the isthmus connecting northern and southern Greece and was one of the major urban centers of the eastern Mediterranean. 

Paul arrived there after earlier missionary work in places such as Thessalonica. According to Acts, he remained in Corinth for about eighteen months, teaching and building the church (Acts 18:1–11). 

Acts presents him as beginning his mission in the synagogue, but 1 Corinthians itself strongly suggests that many members of the community were former pagans rather than Jews, as Paul reminds them in 12:2: “You know that when you were pagans, you were enticed and led astray to idols that could not speak.”

The key passage appears in 1 Corinthians 6:12–20, where Paul addresses sexual conduct within the Corinthian community and culminates with the imperative: “Flee from fornication” (6:18).

The Greek term here is porneia, a word whose meaning is broader and more debated than the English word “fornication” might suggest.

Some modern readers would definitely assume that Paul is speaking generically about all sexual activity outside marriage.

However, Joseph Fitzmyer, in his Commentary on First Corinthians, argues that Paul’s immediate concern in this passage is more specific: he is addressing sexual relations with prostitutes and what he calls “harlotry,” rather than presenting a general abstract theory of premarital sex. 

Paul rejects the libertine slogan apparently circulating in Corinth (“All things are lawful for me”) and insists that Christian freedom doesn’t mean moral license. Sexual conduct cannot be treated like eating food or satisfying any ordinary bodily appetite.

So, Paul’s argument is theological rather than merely legal. The body, he says, is “not meant for fornication, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body” (6:13). 

Fitzmyer emphasizes that Paul is speaking about the physical body (sōma), not simply the “self” in an abstract sense. Because believers’ bodies are members of Christ and temples of the Holy Spirit, sexual union has spiritual significance. 

Paul even cites Genesis 2:24 (“the two shall become one flesh”) to argue that intercourse with a prostitute creates a real bodily union that is incompatible with union with Christ. This is why sexual sin is treated differently. It’s not merely an external act, but something done “against one’s own body.” 

The final exhortation, “glorify God in your body” (6:20), places sexual ethics within the larger framework of Christian identity and holiness.

What does this mean for our central question? Strictly speaking, 1 Corinthians 6 doesn’t directly answer the modern question of consensual premarital sex between two unmarried people in a committed relationship. 

Paul’s immediate concern is prostitution and illicit sexual union more broadly. 

Nevertheless, the passage became foundational for later Christian teaching because it establishes a principle: sexual relations are not morally neutral acts of private choice, but actions bound up with the believer’s union with Christ and the sanctity of the body.

For that reason, most later Christian traditions extended Paul’s argument beyond prostitution to include sexual activity outside marriage more generally.

What Does the Bible Say About Sex Before Marriage? The Case of 1 Thessalonians

The next example that can help us see how the New Testament approaches the question of whether or not sex before marriage is a sin comes from what is probably the earliest New Testament document we possess: Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians. 

If 1 Corinthians shows Paul addressing concrete problems in a well-established urban church, 1 Thessalonians gives us an even earlier glimpse into how Paul instructed new Gentile converts about holiness, sexual conduct, and life within the Christian community.

Paul had founded the Christian community in Thessalonica during one of his missionary journeys and, once he felt that the church had been established, he moved on to continue his work elsewhere.

In the letter, he explains that he had wanted to return to visit them, but circumstances prevented it, or, as Paul puts it in striking language, “Satan blocked our way” (2:18).

Instead, he sent his co-worker Timothy to strengthen and encourage the believers and to make sure they were not being “shaken by these persecutions” (3:3). After Timothy returned with good news that the Thessalonians continued in faith and love and still longed to see Paul again, Paul wrote this letter. 

Yet not everything was ideal within the community. Like many newly converted Gentile Christians, they still needed instruction about how Christian faith should shape daily moral life.

Where does it say how they can do that? 1 Thessalonians 4:3–8, where Paul writes: “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from porneia.”

The entire passage is framed first and foremost as a statement about holiness. Kenneth Grayston, in his Commentary, summarizes the passage well:

The debated center of the passage is, of course, the word porneia. So, in that sense, how should we understand it? 

Gordon Fee notes that, unlike 1 Corinthians 6 (where Paul’s immediate concern is more specifically prostitution and harlotry), here the term functions much more broadly. In biblical usage, porneia covers every form of sexual immorality, and Paul places it directly under the heading of sanctification: “This is the will of God, your holiness.”

Fee also stresses the historical context: many converts in Thessalonica came from a pagan environment in which sexual activity outside marriage was often socially normal and not considered morally problematic.

What Jews and Christians viewed as sexual sin was frequently accepted as ordinary life in Greco-Roman society. That is why Paul contrasts believers with “the Gentiles who do not know God,” who live in “passionate lust.”

The phrase often translated “control your own body” (or literally, “possess your own vessel”) adds another layer of complexity. Both Fee and Grayston note that the Greek term skeuos (“vessel”) is difficult and has generated long scholarly debate. 

It may refer metaphorically to the body, and Grayston judges that the practical meaning “gain mastery over one’s own body” is probably the best sense, even if the Greek remains somewhat uncertain.

He rejects the alternative interpretation that Paul means “acquire a wife,” since there is little evidence that Paul uses such language elsewhere. 

Fee likewise argues that Paul’s larger point is sexual self-control in contrast to pagan indulgence. Sexual conduct is therefore not morally indifferent. Instead, it’s one of the clearest ways believers demonstrate that they “know God” and live differently from the surrounding culture.

Verse 6 pushes the matter further by warning that “no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister in this matter.” 

Grayston rejects the idea that Paul suddenly shifts to business ethics or lawsuits here; the context remains sexual conduct throughout. The likely concern is adultery or another form of sexual wrongdoing that harms another member of the Christian community.

For our main question, this passage is especially significant because it moves beyond the narrower issue of prostitution and presents sexual morality as part of Christian holiness more generally. 

Paul still doesn’t use the modern phrase “premarital sex,” nor does he define every possible boundary with precision.

But by treating porneia as incompatible with sanctification and by placing sexual conduct within the framework of holiness, self-control, and covenantal responsibility, 1 Thessalonians became one of the strongest biblical foundations for the later Christian conviction that sexual relations properly belong within marriage.

Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin in the Bible? Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Mainline Protestant Views

Today, there are many Christian denominations and branches of Christianity, each with its own particular emphases, beliefs, and practices. It would be impossible to survey all of them here, so we will take a brief look at three of the most widely known traditions: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Mainline Protestant Christianity.

Although these traditions differ significantly in theology and church structure, they have historically shared the conviction that sexual relations properly belong within marriage.

In Roman Catholic teaching, sex is understood as morally ordered toward both the unity of the spouses and openness to procreation within the sacramental bond of marriage.

For that reason, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly identifies fornication (sexual intercourse between unmarried persons) as contrary to Christian moral teaching. It’s explicitly stated:

Eastern Orthodox Christianity reaches a very similar conclusion, though it often frames the issue less in terms of codified moral theology and more through the language of ascetic discipline, spiritual formation, and the sanctity of marriage as a sacred union blessed by the Church. 

In both traditions, premarital sex is generally understood as sinful because it separates sexual union from the covenantal and sacramental reality of marriage.

Mainline Protestant traditions are somewhat more diverse. Historically, Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, and Methodist traditions largely maintained the same basic view that sexual intimacy belongs within marriage. 

In many contemporary Protestant communities, however, the discussion has become more varied. 

Some churches continue to uphold a traditional prohibition of premarital sex, while others place greater emphasis on mutual commitment, fidelity, consent, and ethical responsibility rather than on legal marital status alone.

As a result, some mainline Protestants may distinguish between casual sexual relationships and long-term committed partnerships before marriage.

Even so, the dominant historical Christian tradition (across Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant lines) has generally interpreted biblical teaching as placing sexual relations within the framework of marriage rather than outside it.

Is Sex Before Marriage a Sin in Other Religions? (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism)

What about other religions in the contemporary world? Do they proclaim that sex before marriage is a sin? A brief look at Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam shows that the answer depends partly on what we mean by “sin,” since not all traditions use Christian categories. 

Still, all three have historically tended to place sexual relations within the framework of marriage, family order, and religious discipline.

In Hinduism, the issue is complicated because Hindu traditions are diverse and do not have a single centralized authority equivalent to a church magisterium. 

Classical Hindu ethics generally treats sexuality as a legitimate human aim (kāma), but one that should be governed by dharma, or moral and social order. In that framework, sexual relations are traditionally expected to occur within marriage, especially because marriage is tied to family lineage, ritual duty, and social stability.

As Dileepkumar Thankappan explains:

At the same time, Hindu traditions have not always spoken about sexuality with the same categories of “sin” found in Christianity; the more precise point is that premarital sex has usually been viewed as contrary to proper dharmic conduct rather than simply as an isolated private offense.

Judaism also has a long and complex sexual ethic. Classical rabbinic Judaism generally regards sex positively within marriage, not as something shameful in itself.

However, most Jewish authorities have traditionally disapproved of premarital sex because it occurs outside kiddushin, the sanctified marital framework. 

Orthodox Judaism remains strongly opposed to premarital sexual relations, while Conservative and Reform Jewish views are more varied in practice and pastoral emphasis. 

Even when modern Jewish communities speak more flexibly about sexuality, the traditional ideal remains that sexual intimacy is most fully appropriate within a committed Jewish marriage.

Islam is the most explicit of the three on this question. Classical and mainstream Islamic teaching prohibits zina, a category that includes unlawful sexual intercourse outside a valid marriage. This includes both adultery and premarital sex.

The Qur’an warns believers not even to approach zina (Q 17:32), and later Islamic legal and ethical traditions developed this into a strong consensus that sexual intercourse belongs only within marriage.

Conclusion

So, is sex before marriage a sin in the Bible? As we have seen, the answer depends largely on how the question is framed.

The Bible doesn’t contain a single verse that simply states, in modern language, “premarital sex is a sin.” 

Instead, the Old Testament addresses sexual relations primarily through laws concerning marriage arrangements, family honor, inheritance, and covenantal order, while the New Testament (especially in Paul) approaches the issue through holiness, self-control, and the believer’s relationship to God. 

We have to remember that the biblical authors weren’t responding to modern questions about dating, romantic partnerships, or individual sexual autonomy. Rather, they were writing within social worlds where marriage was fundamentally a legal, communal, and religious institution.

At the same time, both Jewish and Christian interpretation, as well as the later teachings of Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Protestant traditions, Islam, and much of Hindu ethical thought, have generally drawn a similar conclusion: sexual relations properly belong within marriage. 

The route to that conclusion, however, differs from tradition to tradition. Some emphasize covenant and sacrament, others ritual order, holiness, dharma, or divine law. 

Historically speaking, then, the better question may not be simply whether the Bible gives a yes-or-no answer, but how generations of believers used biblical texts to shape their understanding of sexuality.

To put it bluntly, the Bible provides the foundation, but interpretation (and the societies doing the interpreting) have always shaped the final answer!

Abortion in the Bible: Does the Bible Say It's a Sin?

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

To talk about abortion in the Bible is to step into one of the most complex and emotionally charged debates of our time. 

Questions about abortion raise not only ethical and political disagreements, but also deeply personal convictions, and, at times, regrettably, even social hostility and violence. Precisely because of this, the topic cannot simply be avoided or dismissed. It requires careful, informed, and respectful discussion. 

As a historian writing for a broad audience through our blog, my aim here isn’t to advocate for a particular position, but to examine what the biblical texts themselves do (and do not) say. The guiding questions for this inquiry are straightforward but significant: Is abortion in the Bible? And does the Bible say abortion is a sin? 

These aren’t easy questions, but they can be approached with clarity when we attend closely to the evidence.

A key challenge, however, lies in the fact that modern debates about abortion often assume categories, definitions, and moral frameworks that didn’t necessarily exist in the ancient world. 

The biblical writings emerged in historical contexts very different from our own, shaped by distinct social structures, legal systems, and understandings of the human body.

As a result, we shouldn’t expect the Bible to address abortion in the direct and systematic way that contemporary discussions might demand. Instead, what we find are a range of passages (legal, narrative, and poetic) that touch on related issues such as pregnancy, fetal development, and the value of human life. 

Interpreting these texts requires attention to their original context, language, and purpose.

In this article, we’ll first situate the Bible within its ancient cultural and literary setting, highlighting why people cannot straightforwardly map its texts onto modern ethical debates. 

We’ll then examine several key passages from the Old Testament that are frequently cited in discussions about abortion, followed by a New Testament example that is sometimes brought into these conversations.

Throughout, the goal will be to present the material in a historically grounded and balanced way, allowing readers to see how different interpretations arise and why different people today come to a completely different conclusion while reading the same passages.

The Bible in Context: Ancient Documents, Not a Modern Rulebook

In their book The Abingdon Introduction to the Bible: Understanding Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Joel S. Kaminsky, Mark Reasoner, and Joel N. Lohr note:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

This brief overview underscores a foundational point: the Bible isn’t a single, unified work composed at one moment in time, but a diverse collection of writings that emerged across many centuries and in a wide range of historical settings.

Recognizing this diversity is essential for any historically responsible interpretation. The texts that make up the Bible were written by different authors, addressing different audiences, and shaped by distinct literary, theological, and social concerns.

Just as importantly, they belong to worlds that are profoundly different from our own: namely, the ancient Near Eastern and Greco-Roman contexts. These were societies with their own assumptions about family structure, law, the body, and reproduction. 

Concepts that dominate modern ethical debates, including those surrounding abortion in the Bible, weren’t framed in the same way in antiquity. As a result, it’s methodologically problematic to expect biblical texts to speak directly and unambiguously to contemporary categories without first considering their original historical horizons.

This tension between ancient context and modern application has been perceptively captured by Paula Fredriksen, who writes:

Her observation highlights a crucial methodological distinction: while theology often seeks to make ancient texts speak to present concerns, historical inquiry aims first to understand those texts within their original settings.

In this article, that historical orientation will be decisive. Rather than beginning with modern assumptions about what the Bible must say, we’ll examine how specific passages functioned within their own literary and cultural contexts. 

At the same time, we will acknowledge that these texts have been read in different ways! Not surprisingly, some interpreters argue that they implicitly condemn abortion, others maintain that they do not address it in any direct or systematic sense.

A careful analysis requires that both perspectives be presented with precision and without caricature.

With these contextual considerations in place, we are now in a better position to turn to the biblical texts themselves. By situating each passage within its historical and literary framework, we can more clearly assess what they contribute (and what they do not) to the broader question of abortion.

Abortion in the Bible: Key Old Testament Passages

This article will follow the conventional division of the Bible between the Old Testament and the New Testament. Obviously, this division is a Christian one, but we can follow it structurally without necessarily accepting a particular Christian (traditional) interpretation.

We’ll begin, therefore, with several key passages from the Old Testament (or Hebrew Bible), which contains most of the material relevant to this discussion. These texts provide the primary foundation for examining how issues related to abortion in the Bible have been interpreted.

Does the Bible Mention Abortion? Exodus 21:22–23

Abortion wasn’t unknown in the ancient world. Medical texts from Egypt and Mesopotamia attest to practices intended to terminate pregnancy. For example, the Ebers Papyrus (16th century B.C.E.) includes a prescription “to cause a woman to stop pregnancy,” indicating that such procedures were part of the broader medical and social landscape of antiquity. 

Against this background, it’s interesting that the Hebrew Bible doesn’t contain a direct legal prohibition or systematic discussion of abortion. 

The passage most frequently cited in modern debates comes from Exodus 21:22–23, which reads: “When people who are fighting injure a pregnant woman so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no further harm follows, the one responsible shall be fined… If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life.”

This raises an immediate and pressing question: does this mean that abortion in the Bible is a sin?

Many Christian apologists would answer this question in the affirmative, though often by reinterpreting the passage in ways that challenge the standard reading. 

For instance, Calum Miller, in his article, argues that the text doesn’t clearly describe a miscarriage at all. He notes that the Hebrew verb commonly translated as “miscarriage” more often refers to live birth, and that this passage doesn’t use a separate, more precise term for miscarriage.

On this reading, the scenario may involve a premature birth rather than fetal death. If so, the law would imply that if the child is harmed, the principle of “life for life” applies, suggesting that the unborn child is afforded legal protection comparable to that of any other person. 

Miller further cautions that differences in legal penalties do not necessarily reflect differences in intrinsic value since factors such as intent and circumstance can affect sentencing.

However, many Hebrew Bible scholars would disagree with such a reading and instead emphasize both the linguistic and contextual limits of the passage. 

John J. Collins, in his book What Are Biblical Values?, presents what is widely regarded as the more straightforward interpretation: that the text refers to an accidental miscarriage resulting from injury.

In this case, the imposition of a fine (rather than the more severe “life for life” penalty) may suggest a legal distinction between the fetus and a fully born person.

At the same time, Collins is careful to stress that this law addresses an unintended injury, not a deliberate termination of pregnancy. As he puts it, “an accidental miscarriage is not the same thing as intentional abortion.”

The passage, in this reading, doesn’t directly legislate abortion, but rather reflects how ancient Israelite law handled cases of bodily harm involving pregnant women.

Collins also draws attention to the history of interpretation, particularly the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible known as the Septuagint.

This version introduces a distinction between a “formed” and “unformed” fetus, assigning greater legal weight to the former.

Later interpreters, such as Philo of Alexandria, developed this idea further, suggesting that the moral status of the fetus might depend on its stage of development. 

Such interpretations demonstrate that even in antiquity, readers didn’t agree on how to understand the text, and that questions about fetal status were already subject to philosophical and cultural influence.

In the end, Exodus 21:22–23 doesn’t yield a single, uncontested answer. Some interpreters see in it an implicit affirmation of the value of unborn life, while others view it as evidence of a legal distinction between the fetus and the mother.

What can be said with confidence is that the passage addresses a specific case of accidental injury rather than offering a general moral teaching about abortion. As with many issues related to abortion in the Bible, the interpretation depends largely on how one reads the text, leaving modern readers to weigh the evidence and draw their own conclusions.

Does the Bible Say Abortion Is a Sin? Numbers 5:11–31

The second example frequently used in discussions about the issue of abortion in the Bible comes from the Book of Numbers (5:11–31).

This passage describes a ritual ordeal administered to a woman suspected of adultery. If a husband becomes jealous but lacks evidence, the woman is brought before a priest, made to drink a concoction of water mixed with dust from the sanctuary floor, and subjected to a divine test.

If she is guilty, the text states that her body will undergo physical affliction (often described as a swelling abdomen and failing “thigh”) whereas if she is innocent, she will remain unharmed and retain her fertility. 

While the text doesn’t explicitly mention pregnancy at every point, many scholars understand the ritual to be closely connected to reproductive outcomes.

This passage is sometimes cited in modern debates as evidence that the Bible explicitly condemns abortion.

The reasoning is relatively straightforward: if the ritual results in the loss of a fetus, and this outcome is portrayed negatively (as a curse or punishment) then it might be taken to imply that abortion itself is morally wrong.

In this reading, the text reinforces a broader biblical ethic that values unborn life and treats its destruction as a serious matter. As with the Exodus passage, however, the interpretation is far from straightforward and depends heavily on how one understands both the language and the broader cultural context.

A more nuanced perspective is offered by Baruch A. Levine in his Commentary on Numbers. Levine argues that, in many cases, pregnancy likely formed the background of the ordeal, since suspicion of adultery could arise precisely from a woman’s apparent conception.

He further suggests that the physical effects described in the text may indeed point to “the loss of her embryo” and that, in certain circumstances, the ritual could “terminate… pregnancy by what amounted to an induced miscarriage or abortion.”

Importantly, however, Levine doesn’t interpret this as a moral teaching about abortion. Instead, the termination of pregnancy appears as a byproduct of a ritual designed to resolve questions of marital fidelity and social order, not as an ethical judgment on abortion itself.

Levine’s analysis goes even further in clarifying the text’s underlying logic. While he acknowledges that the fetus is treated as having value (something also reflected in laws such as those in Exodus 21) he emphasizes that this value isn’t absolute.

The ritual is carried out “notwithstanding the potential loss of the value-bearing fetus,” indicating that other concerns (such as lineage, purity, and divine judgment) take precedence.

In fact, Levine concludes that what many modern readers would call a “right to life” isn’t articulated in these legal materials in an absolute sense. To put it more bluntly, the passage, according to his interpretation, doesn’t function as a prohibition of abortion, but rather reflects a world in which fetal life could be subordinated to broader social and religious priorities.

Similarly, in his course The Bible and Abortion, Bart D. Ehrman argues that this passage is best understood as describing a divinely sanctioned induced abortion, a ritual procedure required under specific legal conditions and not presented as morally problematic within its own framework.

This interpretation reinforces the broader observation that biblical texts do not approach abortion as a standalone ethical issue, but rather address it indirectly, if at all, within other legal and ritualistic contexts.

Is Abortion in the Bible? The Case of Genesis 2

Another verse that is sometimes brought into the debate about the issue of abortion in the Bible comes from Genesis. 

In the second creation account, we read how the first human is formed: “then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being” (Genesis 2:7).

The context here isn’t a legal or ethical discussion, but a theological narrative describing the origins of humanity. Unlike other passages that deal with laws or rituals, this text belongs to a broader reflection on what it means to be human in relation to God.

A key element of this verse is the idea that life begins with the divine breath. The human being, though formed from material substance (dust), doesn’t become a “living being” (nephesh) until God breathes life into him.

Most scholars understand this as a statement of theological anthropology. To put it more bluntly, it’s a reflection on the nature of human life as dependent on God. As Bill T. Arnold notes in his Commentary on Genesis, the phrase “living being” doesn’t refer to a separable “soul” within the body, but rather to the totality of the human person.

In other words, the text isn’t attempting to define when biological life begins, but what it means for a human to be fully alive.

Even so, if one were to read the passage more literally, it would still suggest that life is associated with breath rather than conception.

As Dr. Ehrman explains in his course, the Hebrew Bible consistently portrays a living human being as a material body animated by breath. In that sense, life begins when a being is capable of breathing. Prior to that, it’s not yet a “living being” in the full sense.

Abortion in the Bible: Psalm 139:13–16

Another passage frequently brought into discussions of abortion in the Bible comes from Psalm 139, a poetic reflection on God’s intimate knowledge of the human person. 

In verses 13–16, the psalmist declares: “For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother’s womb… My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret… Your eyes beheld my unformed substance”.

These lines are often cited as evidence that the Bible affirms the full value of human life already in the womb. But does this passage really condemn abortion? Some interpreters would argue that it does, seeing here a powerful affirmation of divine involvement in prenatal life.

A closer look, however, suggests that the passage operates in a very different register. As Mitchell Dahood explains in his Commentary, Psalm 139 is best understood as “a psalm of innocence composed by a religious leader… who was accused of idol worship,” structured as an appeal to God’s all-encompassing knowledge to vindicate the speaker.

In other words, the psalm isn’t a legal or ethical treatise, but a personal prayer rooted in a specific situation of accusation and self-defense.

Its central concern is the fact that God knows the speaker completely (his actions, intentions, and very existence), so thoroughly that no accusation can ultimately stand. This interpretation is reinforced by broader scholarly analysis of the psalm’s genre and theology. 

As Frank-Lothar Hossfeld and Erich Zenger argue, Psalm 139 is best classified as a wisdom meditation on the relationship between the human being and God. Its language of formation in the womb is part of a larger reflection on divine knowledge, presence, and creative power.

As Christian Frevel and Oda Wischmeyer put it in their study Menschsein: Perspektiven des Alten und Neuen Testaments (Being Human: Perspectives From the Old and New Testaments):

The crucial point, however, is that the focus isn’t the embryo itself, but its place within God’s comprehensive knowledge and plan. The psalmist is affirming that God knows even the earliest, hidden stages of existence, not defining when personhood begins or making a moral claim about abortion.

Moreover, much of the imagery in this passage is highly poetic and symbolic rather than literal. The reference to being formed “in the depths of the earth,” for example, isn’t a straightforward description of the womb, but part of a broader set of metaphors emphasizing hiddenness and divine creative activity beyond human perception.

As Hossfeld and Zenger note, such language reflects ancient cosmological imagination and underscores the mystery of human origins, not anatomical processes.

Taken together, these features suggest that Psalm 139 is concerned with theological anthropology (what it means to be a human known and sustained by God) rather than with biological development or ethical legislation.

In light of this, while Psalm 139 offers a profound reflection on divine knowledge and care extending even to prenatal existence, it doesn’t directly address the moral question of abortion. 

Like the other passages we have examined, its meaning depends heavily on how one interprets its genre, language, and purpose.

With this in mind, we can now turn briefly to a New Testament example, where the discussion takes yet another distinctive turn.

Abortion in the Bible: New Testament

To talk about abortion in the Bible from the perspective of the New Testament, one question immediately arises: What did Jesus say about abortion? The simple answer is: nothing.

The historical Jesus never spoke on abortion as far as we can tell. In this respect, a well-known observation by Bart D. Ehrman captures the situation with particular clarity:

This perspective serves as an important reminder that modern attempts to reconstruct “Jesus on abortion” must proceed with considerable historical caution.

That being said, some interpreters have argued that traces of a biblical perspective on abortion might still be found indirectly within the New Testament. 

One passage that is sometimes brought into the discussion appears in the Gospel of Luke (1:41–44), in the account of Mary’s visit to Elizabeth. 

The text describes how “when Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the child leaped in her womb… For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy.” At first glance, this scene (depicting an unborn child reacting within the womb) has been taken by some as evidence that the New Testament attributes a kind of personal or even spiritual awareness to the fetus.

A closer reading, however, suggests a more nuanced conclusion. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Luke, Michael Wolter emphasizes that such interpretations misunderstand the literary and theological intention of the passage.

As he puts it:

Rather than presenting a statement about fetal consciousness or moral status, Luke uses this episode as a narrative device: the movement of the unborn John functions as a sign of eschatological joy, signaling the unfolding of God’s salvific plan. 

The focus isn’t on the fetus as such, but on the theological meaning assigned to the event within the broader story.

Moreover, the scene is carefully constructed to convey interpretation rather than biological observation. Elizabeth’s response is explicitly attributed to the Holy Spirit, indicating that the significance of the event is revealed through divine inspiration rather than empirical description.

The “leaping” of the child, therefore, should be understood symbolically, as part of Luke’s narrative strategy to highlight the significance of the moment.

Conclusion

Paula Fredriksen’s already mentioned observation provides a fitting lens through which to draw all these threads together. Theology, as she notes, often functions as a kind of “time machine,” retrieving ancient texts and making them speak to present concerns. 

And that is precisely what we see in debates about abortion in the Bible. Readers who approach the text with a particular ethical framework will often find passages that appear to support their conclusions: whether by emphasizing the value of life in the womb or by pointing to texts that treat fetal life differently from that of a fully born person. 

In that sense, the Bible has repeatedly been enlisted on multiple sides of the same debate, not because it speaks with one clear voice on the issue, but because its diverse materials can be interpreted in different ways depending on the questions we bring to it.

A historical-critical approach, however, pushes us in a different direction. Rather than asking what the Bible should say about modern ethical issues, it asks what these texts meant within their original cultural and social contexts.

And when we do that, a more restrained conclusion emerges: the biblical writings do not address abortion as a clearly defined moral problem in the way contemporary discussions do. 

They speak instead to a range of related concerns (law, ritual, theology, and narrative) shaped by a world fundamentally different from our own. Recognizing this gap doesn’t resolve the modern debate, but it does clarify what is at stake.

In the end, how one understands abortion in the Bible depends largely on how one approaches the text itself: as a source to be harmonized with present-day convictions, or as a collection of ancient documents whose primary meaning lies in the past before it’s brought into conversation with the present.

Fornication in the Bible: Meaning & Verses

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

The word “fornication” appears frequently in English translations of the Bible, yet its meaning is far less straightforward than it might seem at first glance. While modern readers often assume it refers simply to sex between unmarried people, this definition reflects a relatively narrow and later understanding of the term. In the biblical texts themselves, the words translated as “fornication” carry a much broader and more complex range of meanings shaped by ancient cultural, social, and religious contexts.

In this article, I’ll explain how these terms function across both the Old and New Testaments, tracing how their meanings shift depending on context. By looking closely at the linguistic roots and the historical settings in which these words were used, we can better understand not only what biblical authors may have intended, but also why translating and interpreting “fornication” in the Bible remains such a challenging and often debated task today.

Translations and Definitions of Fornication in the Bible

In most English dictionaries, fornication is defined simply as sexual intercourse between people not married to each other. However, as we’ll soon see, the Hebrew and Greek words frequently translated as fornication often contain much broader connotations.

Let’s begin with Hebrew. The Hebrew verb usually translated as “to commit fornication, prostitution, or unfaithfulness” is zanah, while the related noun zonah generally means a prostitute or harlot. Forms of these words are found many times in the Hebrew Bible, although not always in the same contexts. In my discussion of the use of these words in Old Testament books, I’ll go into more detail about the ways various forms of this word are used.

Meanwhile, the Greek word often translated as fornication in the New Testament is porneia, from which we derive English words like pornography. However, translating this word is a tricky business and requires some background.

In his book The Corinthian Body, Dale Martin notes that "the precise meaning of porneia is simply uncertain given the lack of evidence we have." It’s not that we don’t know the general gist of the word: porneia always refers in some sense to sexual immorality. The problem is that different cultures and times in history have defined sexual immorality differently. As Carolyn Osiek has noted in Early Christian Families in Context, "To say that πορνεία [porneia] means fornication is circular, and the concept of illicit sex only begs the question of what is considered illicit." For an example of this, let’s discuss the difference between adultery (Greek: moicheia) and fornication (porneia) in the ancient Greek-speaking world.

In his article, “Porneia: The Making of a Christian Sexual Norm,” Kyle Harper notes that the line dividing these two concepts was entirely determined by the status of the woman involved.

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

For modern people, adultery and fornication can overlap. If a person is married and has sex with someone to whom he is not married, he is an adulterer. But since the two having sex are also not married to each other, they are also committing fornication according to the dictionary definition above.

Harper notes that the word porneia, “derived from the Greek pornē ("prostitute")… passed into Latin as fornicatio and thence into English as "fornication." But "fornication" is effectively limited to ecclesiastical usage.”

He goes on to remark that while the definition of the English word fornication has narrowed over time, the definition of porneia gradually broadened in Greek. Since it was originally derived from the word pórnē as noted above, Harper writes that porneia first meant simply "the practice of selling access to one's body. Porneia in classical Greek, refers [only] to the activity of the seller.” However, he reports that this meaning would eventually expand:

These sexual standards were only applicable when “free women,” those who were not slaves, had a respectable marriage, and were not prostitutes, were involved. However, Harper notes that long before the advent of Christianity, “Athenian law held that a man was not a μοιχός [adulterer] if he had sex with a woman who sits in a brothel or sells herself openly… The μοιχός violates a [free] woman, not his own marriage bond; there is no female equivalent.”

In other words, the classification of sexual violations had more to do with the status of the woman involved than with any objective moral standard. Men with respectable marriages could have sex with slaves or prostitutes without technically violating their marriages. On the other hand women, even free women, were not given the same liberty.

Having established some of the nuances of the translation issues involved in this topic, let’s move on to how the Bible uses the word fornicate (or its equivalents) in the Old Testament.

Fornication in the Old Testament

We begin with the earliest iteration of zanah, the Hebrew word often translated as fornication in the Hebrew Bible canon. It’s found in the story of Tamar and Judah in Genesis 38. Tamar is widowed twice after the deaths of Judah’s sons Er and Onan. However, Judah fails to fulfill his obligation to provide his third son, Shelah, as her husband, leaving Tamar in a vulnerable and dishonorable position. Realizing she has been wronged, Tamar disguises herself as a prostitute and sleeps with Judah, who does not recognize her. When she becomes pregnant and is accused of prostitution, she reveals items Judah gave her as payment, proving he is the father. Judah admits his wrongdoing and declares Tamar more righteous than himself.

The word zanah in this story comes in verse 24 when it is discovered that Tamar is pregnant:

Notice that zanah here refers only to prostitution or paid sexual favors. However, in another book in the Pentateuch, we soon see the metaphorical use of the word, a use which becomes far more common than the literal use of the term in the Old Testament.

In Numbers 14:33, we see this sentence using a form of zanah in a figurative way:

The context of this passage is the 40 years the Israelites have wandered in the wilderness looking for the Promised Land. In this sentence, the Hebrew word zanūṯêḵem, which can mean extramarital sex, is used for unfaithfulness to God, otherwise known as idolatry. In fact, this word is used frequently to mean worship of idols in further passages.

Another example of this use can be found in 2 Kings 9, which describes an Israelite warrior named Jehu overthrowing the wicked king Ahab and killing his wife Jezebel. However, before Jezebel is killed, we see this short dialogue in verse 22:

Although calling a woman a “Jezebel’ once meant an accusation of sexual promiscuity in English, this is not what Jehu accuses Jezebel of. Instead, he charges her with serving idols rather than the God of Israel. In other words, her “prostitutions” are simply unfaithfulness to God.

A final example comes from the prophets who use this metaphor of fornication-as-idolatry more than any other Old Testament books. In Jeremiah 2:20, God speaks through the prophet, telling the Israelites

In this entire chapter, God begs his people to repent for worshipping other gods, specifically the Canaanite gods of the people around them. This is depicted as a form of “prostituting” themselves, selling their allegiance to other gods to get what they want or establish bonds with other peoples rather than serving their own God. As Harper notes,

But what about the New Testament? Is there any continuity with the Hebrew Bible’s figurative reading of fornication or prostitution as idolatry?

Fornication in the New Testament

In most Greek lexicons, the word porneia is defined as sexual immorality, fornication, marital unfaithfulness, prostitution, adultery, or simply as a generic term for sexual sin of any kind. In other words, it can be used to mean something very specific or something general and vague, making it a hard word to translate accurately. To do so, we need to look at specific verses in the New Testament and analyze their use of the word according to the specific contexts.

Let’s start with the Gospels. In telling the Pharisees what defiles a person in Matthew 15:19, Jesus refers to porneia as one item in a long list of sins:

The King James Version (and several other versions) translates porneia as “fornication.” But since Jesus doesn’t specify, and since the word in Jesus’ time could mean so many different types of sexual immorality, it’s difficult to know his intention. We find the same problem in Mark 7:21, of which Matthew is essentially a copy. Does it indicate prostitution? Sex with someone outside marriage? Pederasty? All of the above? It’s impossible to know for sure.

In fact, the same broad term is used in Acts 15:19–20, in a letter sent from the Jerusalem Church to Gentile converts:

While it may be significant, given the metaphorical use of fornication/prostitution as idol worship in the OT, that the letter specifies both idol worship and sexual immorality as prohibited, their equivalence is not stated explicitly.

However, the author of Acts—who also wrote the book of Luke—seems to assume that his readers will know what porneias means, and therefore avoids mentioning specific sexual prohibitions. However, one thing is clear from this passage: as Jennifer Wright Knust writes in her book Abandoned to Lust: Sexual Slander and Ancient Christianity, the word porneia is used rhetorically to define a moral failing associated with depraved outsiders. In this and many other cases in the NT, Christians are defined as those who do not engage in porneia.

Paul epitomizes this exclusionary meaning of the word in 1 Corinthians 5:1–5:

Questions about this passage remain. For instance, is the man who is living with his father’s wife committing porneia simply in the sense that they aren’t married to each other? Or because it is legally defined as incest? Or because it is adultery? Note that all of these seem to be the case, indicating that for Paul, writing in the 1st century CE, porneia can be broadly applied to all of them.

In addition, the fact that Paul wants this man thrown out of the group makes Knust’s point that the word was primarily used in writing for the purpose of defining who was in (members of the church who are not committing porneia) and who was out (those who commit some form of porneia).

Finally, we find several verses in the NT which clearly harken back to the OT use of the word zanah to indicate the sin of idolatry. These occur principally in the book of Revelation, which uses many OT themes to communicate its message about the eschaton or end of the world. In Revelation 2:21, for instance, in a letter to the church at Thyatira, John of Patmos writes this:

Note that first of all, John calls this female false prophet Jezebel, a name he almost certainly gives her for rhetorical purposes. Second, sexual immorality here is intertwined with idol worship, just as it is figuratively in the Hebrew Bible. We see a similar conflation in Revelation 14:8:

In the book of Revelation, Babylon is the code word for Rome. Calling Rome a prostitute is the same as calling her an idol-worshipper, especially since Rome was polytheistic and persecuted Christians for refusing to worship Roman gods. Revelation 17:5 makes this even more explicit. John sees a woman clothed in the royal color of purple and wearing extravagant jewelry, representing the Roman emperors,

This is not a characterization of Rome as sexually immoral, but rather as idolatrous. Rome is again compared to Babylon, the earlier empire which also destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple and forced Jews to worship idols. By this last book of the Bible, we have, in a sense, come full circle: porneia is explicitly associated with idolatry, just as it was in so many places in the OT.

Conclusion

Translation is always a tricky business, especially with texts as old as those in the Bible. Languages, even those like Greek and Hebrew which have survived, change drastically over time. This is why so many different English translations of the Bible have been made: there remain many different opinions on how best to translate important words like “fornication.”

The Hebrew word zanah is one of these. Literally meaning prostitution, promiscuity, or unfaithfulness, we find that, while some early OT texts use this literal meaning, many of the later books use this word figuratively to signify idol worship as infidelity to God.

With the Greek word porneias, the problem of translation is intensified. This word was used in the social and linguistic world of the NT to mean just about every kind of sexual immorality one can imagine: sex between unmarried people, sex between those not married to each other but married to other people, prostitution, incest; the list goes on and on. While we can surmise that readers and hearers of those texts in their time must have understood what the authors meant, 2,000 years later we can only speculate.

Adultery in the Bible: Meaning, Types, & Verses

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily match my own. - Dr. Bart D. Ehrman

Adultery is one of the best-known prohibitions in the Bible, yet its meaning is often misunderstood when read through modern assumptions about love, marriage, and personal relationships. In order to grasp what the biblical authors meant by adultery, we have to step into a very different cultural world.

In this article, I’ll answer questions about adultery in the Bible, from its definitions to the laws of the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus and Paul in the New Testament. I’ll also examine how ancient marriage customs shaped these definitions, why adultery in the Bible was treated as such a serious offense, and how its meaning expanded from a physical act to a matter of intention and moral character.

Marriage in the Ancient World: No Bed of Roses

Since adultery is broadly conceived of as a violation of the marriage bond, it’s important to understand ancient marriage, an institution defined quite differently, in both purpose and practice, from modern marriages. That is, we need to understand what prohibitions on adultery in the Bible were meant to protect.

In his book The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology, Bruce Malina notes that, unlike the initiation of most marriages in the modern world, romance was not involved in ancient marriage customs:

(Affiliate Disclaimer: We may earn commissions on products you purchase through this page at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting our site!)

In other words, marriage was not an agreement between two people in love, but an economic contract between two families. It was, therefore, meant to be mutually beneficial for both families, especially in the economic realm. Most biblical marriages were arranged by the families of the bride and groom according to certain criteria. Malina writes that

The wife would normally move in with the husband’s family, and be subject to the authority not only of her husband, but also of the rest of the family. The woman’s status improved slightly after she had her first child, but she nevertheless remained the low person on the totem pole. However, in order to secure the marriage contract, the groom’s family had to pay something to the bride’s family. It’s all but impossible, therefore, to avoid the perception that the prospective wife was treated as a type of commodity. Malina notes that

It follows, then, that the ancient biblical ban on adultery was not there to protect the husband and wife as individuals but to safeguard the honor and economic position of the families involved. Adultery was a serious matter which, especially in small communities, could affect the whole fabric of a society.

Adultery in the Bible: Verses From the Old Testament

Given the difference between marriage in the ancient world and marriage today, what actually constituted adultery? Were there different types of adultery? The commandment in Exodus 20:14, “You shall not commit adultery,” doesn’t explain any further. However, three verses down from that commandment, Exodus 20:17 makes it clear what the status of the wife was:

Note that the commandment against coveting lists a wife among things a man can possess, including a house, a slave, and livestock. By this definition, adultery is actually a kind of theft. However, since marriage was, as Malina wrote, “the fusion of the honor of two extended families,” adultery was also an offense against the honor of the husband’s family. For both these reasons, it was a serious offense.

The book of Leviticus also makes clear what constitutes adultery generally: sex between a man, married or unmarried, and a married woman who is not his wife. As such, what was the punishment for adultery in the Bible? Leviticus 20:10 gives us an example:

Notice that although we can find plenty of unfair treatment of women in the Bible, the law from Leviticus states that both man and woman involved in consensual adultery must be punished. Scholars are uncertain how consistently such punishments were inflicted on adulterers but, as we’ll see below, the prohibition on adultery remained an important commandment throughout the history of Judaism.

A further clarification of adultery comes from Deuteronomy 22:26, which says that if a married woman is raped by a man who is not her husband, only the rapist is put to death, not the victim, who has done nothing wrong.

On the other hand, if a man suspected that his wife had committed adultery but had no witnesses, the wife could be tested by the ordeal of the bitter water, outlined in Numbers 5. This was a “test” administered by a priest in which the suspected woman is forced to drink a potion consisting of holy water and dust. If she suffers any ill effects from the potion, she is considered guilty and punished accordingly. If she suffers no ill effects, she is considered innocent. By the way, there is no similar test administered to a husband whom the wife suspects of committing adultery.

In later Hebrew Bible writings, women are characterized as aggressors, while young men, portrayed as potential victims, are warned against seductresses and/or adulteresses. See for example, Proverbs 7:4–5 in which the young man is encouraged to

And what are the consequences of an encounter with this adulteress? Verses 25–27 make it clear that they are far worse than mere earthly punishments:

Note that, in these verses, the man seems to bear less responsibility. The woman engages in unseemly behavior and thus tricks the naïve young man into perdition.

By contrast, Hosea 4:13–14 makes use of the common biblical metaphor of adultery and/or fornication as idolatry:

James Luther Mays, writing in the HarperCollins Study Bible, says that in the context of idolatry, “Daughters of Israelites seem to have been involved… in promiscuous sex and debauchery, which were thought to ‘jump start’ agricultural fecundity.” In other words, the prophetic warning is not just against literal adulterous behavior but against sexual rituals asking for favors from other gods.

Adultery in the Bible: New Testament Verses

The 1st-century authors of most of the New Testament texts certainly inherited the scriptural ideas of the Old Testament. However, we know that, as with many religious ideas, things had changed by the Second Temple Period. In particular, punishments for adultery had changed.

Rabbinic texts, looking back on the Second Temple period, stated that the Jewish legal system had given up inflicting executions on anyone for any crime, including adultery. Instead, according to the Mishnah, adulterers were publicly whipped, and the husband of an adulteress was forced to divorce her. A woman caught in adultery lost any property granted through her marriage agreement and was not allowed to marry the adulterer with whom she had violated her marriage.

This may seem harsh, by modern standards, but in the Sermon on the Mount, specifically Matthew 5:27–28, Jesus takes an even sterner position:

Does this mean that Jesus believes that any man who looks at a woman lustfully should receive the punishments normally granted to adulterers in his time? Perhaps, but Jesus doesn’t say. L. Michael White writes in Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite, the Jesus of Matthew “focuses on Torah observance and piety as the proper path to righteousness,” which is why the Sermon on the Mount “stands as a call to discipleship under the guideline of Torah.” Therefore, since Matthew’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as a teacher and re-interpreter of the Jewish Law, it’s indeed possible that he would have viewed any form of lust as punishable (although this would have been highly difficult to enforce).

Meanwhile, in John 8:3–11 we have the famous story of the woman taken in adultery. While most scholars agree that this passage is a later interpolation to John, it has long been seen as an emblem of the mercy of Christ.

In the story, a woman is caught in the act of adultery and is dragged by scribes and Pharisees to Jesus, who is teaching near the Temple. They plan to stone her to death and ask Jesus whether they should, since the Torah says so. Jesus says "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." Since none of them are sinless, they drop their rocks and leave. Jesus then tells the woman that he won’t condemn her either and not to sin anymore.

This is a beautiful story about love and forgiveness, but it brings up some odd historical problems. First, according to Michael Satlow writing in the Jewish Annotated New Testament, by the 1st century CE, only Romans were allowed to put criminals to death. Second, where is the male adulterer in this story? If the woman was indeed “caught in the act,” the man should have been caught as well and put to death, according to Leviticus.

The most likely explanation for the first fact is that this was not meant to report a historical occurrence but was rather a teaching story, much like Jesus’ parables. The mere threat of being put to death is enough to show Jesus’ mercy and forgiveness. The male adulterer, meanwhile, may have simply run away and escaped, or perhaps he was treated more leniently, as men generally were in the ancient world.

Either way, note that while Matthew’s Jesus is quite severe, not only about adultery itself but also about lust, John’s Jesus is merciful and forgiving. Scholars have long noted the difference in theological emphasis between these two books.

Additionally, the Sermon on the Plain, Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount, includes divorce and remarriage among the definitions of adultery. Malina explains:

Above all, this verse in Luke seems to be a continuance of Jesus as Torah teacher, making Torah observance for his followers even stricter than that of the Pharisees (see Matt 5:20).

Finally, 1 Corinthians 6:9 shows Paul putting adulterers on a long list of sinners who will not be saved on the last day:

It’s interesting to note that Paul does not rank any of these sins as worse than the others. Adulterers are apparently equal to drunkards, swindlers, and those who worship idols. For Paul in this passage, all these sins, regardless of their severity, make a person ineligible for citizenship in the coming kingdom.

Is Adultery a Sin in Other Religions? (Islam, Hinduism, Judaism)

Now that we’ve explored adultery in the Bible, you might wonder how other major religions treat the matter. Let’s take a look.

Judaism

We started off by outlining what the Hebrew Bible says about adultery, so we know that for ancient Jews, adultery was strictly prohibited, if for different reasons than we modern people might assume. However, in his book Every Person's Guide to Jewish Sexuality, Rabbi Ronald Isaacs says that the command against adultery is strictly upheld by Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis to this day, albeit without the harsh physical punishments.

Islam

Islam’s ideas about adultery are similar to those found in the Pentateuch. However, the Quran uses the Arabic word zina to refer to any sexual intercourse outside of a valid marriage contract, regardless of whether the individuals involved are single or married (this is perhaps similar to the Greek word porneia which can also mean any sexual misconduct). Based on this, Quran 24:2 says

However, lest someone in the community try to use this punishment to hurt someone who is actually innocent, Quran 24:4 says

Hinduism

According to Hindu religious texts, Hinduism also sees adultery as a grave violation which has long-term consequences in this life and future lives. For example, in the Hindu scripture known as the Vishnu Purana 3.11, it says

Furthermore, another Hindu scripture known as the Manusmriti, written between 200 BCE and 200 CE, says in Chapter 8 that

The frequent parentheses in these verses indicate gaps in the manuscripts which scholars and translators have filled in with likely information. While ancient categories such as castes may be hard for us to go along with, it’s clear that, as in the monotheistic religions, Hinduism sees adultery as a serious violation of religious codes.

Conclusion

Most world religions prohibit adultery. However, since adultery is always defined as a violation of marriage vows, we need to understand marriage in the context in which these rules were written in order to understand what adultery originally meant.

Examinations of adultery in the Bible require the additional context that marriage was not the romantic involvement of two people who vowed loving fidelity only to each other. Instead, it was a political and economic contract between two families. Marriages were arranged by the families, not the individuals getting married, and the father of the groom had to pay a price to the father of the bride.

Although unfortunate, it’s easy to see, then, how in Exodus, a wife is listed along with commodities like a house and livestock, which others should not covet. In the Old Testament world, adultery was not a personal violation against an individual, but a violation of the honor and economic status of the family.

In the New Testament, Jesus says that anyone who lusts for a woman, even if he never interacts with her at all, is guilty of adultery. While there is no historical evidence of widespread acceptance of this notion (how could it be enforced, after all?), it was meant to show that Jesus took the Torah more seriously than the Jewish leaders of his day.

Finally, Paul noted that a long list of sinners, adulterers included, were in grave danger of losing their inheritance of the Kingdom of God. While adultery wasn’t listed as better or worse than any other sin, it was serious enough to have grave consequences in the hereafter.

Love Thy Stranger: The Radical Origins of Western Compassion (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 175 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

This episode examines how ideas of moral behavior in the ancient world shaped—and were reshaped by—Jesus’ teachings and early Christianity. Bart Ehrman and Megan Lewis begin by challenging the assumption that the Greco-Roman world lacked ethics. Instead, they argue that Greek and Roman societies had robust moral systems, but these were generally grounded in philosophy and civic tradition rather than divine command. Religion in those cultures focused primarily on ritual obligations to the gods, not on regulating interpersonal ethics. Moral philosophy, especially among thinkers like the Stoics, carried much of that ethical burden.

The conversation then turns to ancient Israelite religion, where ethics were explicitly tied to divine command. The Hebrew Bible presents laws—such as prohibitions against murder, theft, and adultery—as God-given imperatives intended to shape communal life and distinguish Israel from other peoples.

Ehrman highlights Jesus as both continuous with and transformative of this tradition. Jesus draws heavily from prophetic teachings in texts like Isaiah and Amos, emphasizing care for the poor, marginalized, and vulnerable. However, Jesus radicalizes this ethic in light of his apocalyptic worldview: he believed the present world order was soon to end and be replaced by God’s kingdom. This urgency intensifies his moral demands and expands them beyond ethnic and religious boundaries.

The key innovation, according to Ehrman, is the universalization of “love your neighbor” into “love the stranger,” extending ethical obligation beyond one’s own community. The episode concludes by noting how early Christianity later reshaped charitable practices, contributing to institutions like hospitals and orphan care that redefined social responsibility in the Western world.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!

Did Jesus Invent Modern Morality? Exploring Ancient Ethics (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 176 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

This episode of Misquoting Jesus explores the ethical landscape of Jesus’ world by first stepping back into Greek and Roman philosophical traditions that shaped how people thought about “the good life.” Bart Ehrman distinguishes between everyday morality (internal instincts about right and wrong) and ethics as more systematic, reasoned frameworks for human behavior.

The discussion begins with Aristotle, who argued that all human action ultimately aims at eudaimonia—a deep form of fulfillment or flourishing rather than fleeting happiness. For Aristotle, virtues like courage, justice, self-control, and wisdom were essential for achieving this state, but only within the context of the polis, or civic community.

The conversation then moves into the Hellenistic world after Alexander the Great, where philosophical schools adapted to life under empire. Epicureans emphasized simple pleasures, friendship, and freedom from fear; Stoics centered ethics on reason (logos) and aligning oneself with the rational structure of the universe; and Cynics pushed radical detachment from material goods altogether.

Ehrman argues that Jesus likely did not engage directly with these philosophical systems but operated within Jewish apocalyptic traditions. His ethical vision diverged sharply from Greco-Roman ideals of personal flourishing. Instead of seeking contentment in this life, Jesus emphasized service, humility, rejection of domination, and loyalty to God’s coming kingdom.

The episode ultimately contrasts two ethical worlds: one focused on rational human flourishing within society, and another centered on spiritual allegiance and self-sacrifice in anticipation of divine intervention.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!

Did the Dead Sea Scrolls Actually Prove the Old Testament Was Unchanged? (vIDEO)

Welcome to the home of Episode 185 of the Misquoting Jesus Podcast with Bart Ehrman.  Below, you can watch the entire episode, read its description, and see links to related resources.

links mentioned in this episode:

episode description

Disclaimer: We use an AI generation tool for episode summaries.

Episode 185 explores why the Dead Sea Scrolls remain one of the most important archaeological discoveries in biblical studies and what they actually reveal about the transmission of the Hebrew Bible. Bart Ehrman explains how many conservative Christians historically believed the Old Testament had been copied perfectly across the centuries, unlike the New Testament, which was known to contain scribal changes. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 seemed, at first glance, to support that belief—especially because the complete Isaiah scroll closely resembles the later Masoretic Hebrew text preserved in Codex Leningradensis.

But the conversation takes a more complicated turn when Bart discusses other biblical books found at Qumran, especially Jeremiah. Fragments of Jeremiah discovered among the scrolls align more closely with the shorter Greek Septuagint version than with the later Hebrew text, suggesting significant textual variation existed long before medieval Jewish scribes standardized copying practices. Bart argues this demonstrates that the Hebrew Bible was not transmitted with perfect uniformity over the centuries.

The episode also explores why the scrolls matter far beyond textual criticism. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide an unprecedented window into Jewish diversity before Jesus, especially the beliefs of the Essenes and their apocalyptic worldview. Bart explains how these writings illuminate the broader religious environment that shaped early Christianity and help scholars better understand the world Jesus and his followers inhabited.

ready to dive deeper?

Related Courses offered by Bart Ehrman and/or Paths in Biblical Studies:

Related Articles (Free Resources):

ways to watch or listen to the misquoting jesus podcast:

And many more!  Just search for the show title in your favorite podcast app!