# data[].attributes.headline
The Commandment: From Reformation to Present 

# data[].attributes.subject
The Commandment: From Reformation to Present 

# data[].attributes.body
You shall not commit adultery.

# data[].attributes.body
Neither shall you commit adultery.

# data[].attributes.body
This analysis of the seventh commandment will take up how this commandment has been interpreted from the Reformation to now. This will not be exhaustive, but I will use four scholars to consider how the interpretation has shifted and maintained over time. We will explore first Martin Luther, then move onto John Calvin before we jump all the way to Charles Hodge and then to Patrick Miller. Each of the individual scholars context will be provided in brief in order that we can better understand the social locale from which these interpretation are deriving.

The purpose of this analysis is to show that this commandment, and all of them at that, are not a matter of reading and simply following the commandments as they are given. Interpretive work must be done for the breadth and trajectory of each commandment, specifically the seventh here, in order to wrestle with them as divine commands. I also intend to show that the commandments are not static words, but are continually readdressed by tracing the changing interpretation of the seventh commandment across centuries.

# data[].attributes.body
Martin Luther was writing in Germany, during a time of well, reform. The Protestant Reformation began with Luther, whereby after his excommunication from the Catholic Church in 1521 , he began a new movement we now know as Protestantism.

One of Luthers primary concerns was that the Bible was the ultimate authority, not the Church officials. Therefore, in his Larger Catechism, he takes up the interpretation and application of the Ten Commandments for laypeople in the communities he lives and ministers to.

Note:
Though I am using the numbering system that common in certain mainline Protestant circles, and have this commandment as the seventh; Luther numbers this as the sixth commandment. It is not vitally important for understanding the commandment, but needs to be noted as to avoid confusion.

# data[].attributes.body
Luther establishes early in this Catechism, that he holds the order of the commandments as reflective of their importance. The commandment, directly preceding this one we are discussing, “You shall not commit murder” (Exodus 20:13) protects first the life of one’s neighbor. As for Luther, it them makes sense that he claims all the commandments are to protect our neighbor (331). In this outward trajectory, first in protection of the physical body, and then the wellbeing of the neighbors spouse, Luther explains the trajectory of the commandments as, “The commandments are arranged to deal with the person of our neighbors, and then the person nearest of them, their spouse who is flesh and blood with them” (331). This high view on marriage will become more evident as we move through this text. How one is to do that, for Luther is beyond the physical act of adultery “not only is the outward act forbidden, but also every kind of cause, provocation, and means, so that your heart, lips, your entire body may be chaste, and if for no occasion aid or encourage unchastity” (331). Luther weds together the idea of unchastity to fidelity in marriage, as he will continue to use that language throughout.

Luther also take up into that the breadth of the commandment extends to protecting the honor of your neighbor. In following the acts which are forbidden in this commandment and the idea of honor, Luther contends that it is not enough to protect your neighbors marriage, but you are to help them live in a chaste manner (332). This is necessary, because of the honor that is within the institution of marriage. For Luther marriage is from God and, “established before all others as the first of all institutions” (332). Now how is one to maintain such high honor in marriage, as given by God. Luther has two functions, the first fidelity in the marriage and the second children, “God created man and women differently…to be fruitful, to beget children into nurture, and bring them up into the glory of God” (332). Luther does acknowledge that faithfulness to partner is important, but his emphasis is on children. Therefore, to protect the marriage of your neighbor, and their honor is also to protect the wellbeing of their children. And all of this is only because. “Marriage is an institution and an object of God’s serious concern” (332). Luther, proclaims that the institution of marriage is not restricting, but “the most universal, noblest, pervading all Christendom and even extending throughout the world” (333). Here one can see that Luther is using this commandments protection of marriage as a way in which Gods message can be expanded through this institution that God is greatly concerned with.

# data[].attributes.headline
Photo of Katharina von Bora, Luthers wife

# data[].attributes.subject
Photo of Katharina von Bora, Luthers wife

# data[].attributes.body
Luther was married at the time he was writing this Catechism.

Do you think this influenced his interpretation of the commandment at all?

# data[].attributes.body
Luther beings to push back on the of abstinence and total celibacy, where in his world those were held in high esteem (Stjerna, 333). “There are some exceptions who God has especially exempted and then some are unsuited for married life or others got has released via high supernatural gift so that they can maintain chastity outside of marriage” (334). A tension begins to show for Luther where he holds celibacy in high regard, as a supernatural gift, while at the same time condemning it. However, he claims that” it is not possible to remain chaste outside of marriage” (334). Because we, humans cannot remain chaste, Luther believes that God has given humanity the institution of marriage (334). It becomes even more evident that much of Luther’s interpretation surrounding this commandment is in response the Catholic expectations that clergy remain celibate, “Even though they abstain from the act, their hearts remain so full of unchaste thoughts and evil desires, they suffer incessant raging’s of secret passion which can be avoided in married life” (334).

To conclude Luther’s main interpretative move is placing marriage as a gift from God in order to avoid sinning while attempting to be chaste, or sliding into sexual temptation that is inherent in all people. God has given humanity marriage, as holy, but nevertheless correction to our sexual ailments. Luther himself, has a high regard for chastity and equates it within the realm of marriage, and it aimed at the young people, “I say these things in order that our young people maybe lead to acquire a desire fair married life in know that it is a God pleasing way of life” (334). In trying to lead young people into alignment with the commandment, Luther also notes that this is one of the best ways to make chastity attractive and desirable. (335).

Works Cited:
Luther, Martin. Edited by Kirsi I. Stjerna, The Large Catechism of Dr. Martin Luther, 1529: The Annotated Luther, Study Edition, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2016.

# data[].attributes.body
Calvin, born in France was a French theologian, and was writing just after the work of Martin Luther. He was one of the most influential leaders and theologians during the Protestant Reformation, especially in his return to Geneva where he preached and taught. His multi-volume work, Institutes of the Christian Religion, articulated new forms of polity, Church structure where he sought to introduce them to the church in Geneva.

# data[].attributes.body
Much like Luther, Calvin uses the language of chastity, purity and marriage. It is under these ideas the Calvin interprets the entire commandment. Calvin holds that humanity has been created in the condition of lustfulness, but balances this with the giving of a helper by God. Sexuality for Calvin is connected to lustfulness, and it is under this idea that he holds God as gifting humanity with marriage as a necessity to cope with the lustfulness of humanity (405). Calvin writes, “The companionship of marriage has been ordained as a remedy to keep us from plunging into unbridled lust” (405). Because Calvin believes that the human person is inherently lustful, he holds a high regard for celibacy. He states, “Those who cannot remain celibate should turn to marriage” (406). Though he does name that marriage is a gift from God, Calvin holds celibacy above marriage. Unlike Luther, Calvin does not understand celibacy within the bounds of marriage itself. Celibacy, as understood by Calvin is also a gift from God, but not all persons are so lucky to have the gift of remaining celibate (406). Calvin even goes so far to say, “If a man cannot contain his lust, then he must realize that the Lord has imposed the necessity of marriage upon him” (407).

Though it may seem thus far that Calvin has a low view of marriage, that is not the case. It is within the bounds of marriage that Calvin begins to take up the issue of adultery itself. Calvin maintains, “A man who has no regard for shame or honorableness in his marriage practices, is  an adulterer toward his own wife” (408). Honorableness is not for Calvin, simply inherent because two persons are married. Honorableness, still requires a certain level of regard in actions for the other person in the partnership.

Under this commandment against adultery, Calvin also includes the issue of fornication, which he understands as forbidden by God. Purity for Calvin is central to his interpretation, and expands the meaning of adultery to that which pervades the purity and integrity of soul, spirit and body (408). Fornication falls into the category of that which perverts this such integrity, “he forbids us to commit fornication” (408). But Calvin does not stop his interpretation of what is forbidden at fornication, and expands even further to seduction, obscene gestures, and foul speech (408). Calvin’s asserts that seduction is anything that compromises the “modesty of another”, and continues, “If the Lord requires modesty of us he condemns whatever opposes it” (408).

Works Cited:
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

# data[].attributes.body
Hodge was a Presbyterian theologian and professor at Princeton Theological Seminary. He argued primary for the Bible to be understood as the Word of God. His words reflect a time early in Princeton Seminaries History whereby he was the foremost theologian to what would be known as Princeton Theology.

# data[].attributes.body
Hodge wrote extensively on the Commandments, and reflects a shift in interpretation from the strict purity and holiness codes which Luther and Calvin interpreted this Commandment through. Hodge wrestled with the complexities of modern world, in relation to that of the early Israelites and how one is to understand this commandment in light of the Holiness Codes, Jesus and his own personal theological convictions. Hodge immediately breaks away from the belief that Luther and Calvin held in that marriage is a less holy state than celibacy. He writes, “The doctrine which degrades marriage by making it a less holy state, has its foundation Gnosticism” (369). Hodge is interpreting the main thrust of this commandment under the foundation of marriage. And he holds that this is the highest, most holy walk of life and not only is it God ordained, it is in itself good. He breaks away from the strict purity culture of celibacy and strongly asserts, “It  [celibacy] assumes that evil is essentially connected with matter; that sin has its seat and source in the body; that holiness is attainable only through asceticism. It is thoroughly anti-Christian” (369).

He traces the gift and function of marriage in the Old and New Testament Scriptures and argues that, “marriage is represented as the normal state of man” (369). It is not only the normal state of man as it stands under this commandment for Hodge, but it is the preferred state of man. He articulates this through the New Testament’s use of both the marriage between two human people, and the function of marriage as a metaphor for the divine – human relationship (370).

The interpretation also considers the function of marriage within civil society, and for Hodge he does not denounce the importance of this, however he understands marriage first a matter before God. He posits, “Marriage is a divine institution. Marriage was instituted before the existence of civil society, and therefore cannot in its essential nature be a civil institution” (376). Because marriage came first from God, Hodge concludes that it is first a matter before God. If it is then matter before God initially, then the mutual vow of fidelity also falls under the consideration of this Commandment. This vow is not so much made to one another Hodge believes as it is made, “by each to God” (376). If the vow is to God, then to commit adultery and break this Commandment is not a violation of the human marriage covenant alone but the covenant made to God. Therefore this is equally a matter before God as it is a matter between two persons.

Hodge takes up many other areas of consideration for this commandment, but the two to which I find necessary to address in order to understand his hermeneutical lens is that of polygamy, and divorce. On polygamy, Hodge is clear in stating, “There has never been a church calling itself Christian which tolerated a plurality of wives among its members” (380). Polygamy for Hodge is a clear violation of the commandment. On divorce, he is more nuanced. He claims that, “If a man repudiates her on just grounds and marries another, he commits no offense. Our Lord makes the guilt of marrying after separation depend on the ground of the separation” (390). Hodge interprets the treatment of this command on divorce in light, primarily of Jesus’ words from Matthew 19:3-12. To divorce and then remarry is not necessary in violation of the command as Hodge understands. He further expands on what grounds constitute divorce (393-397), however it is beyond the scope of primary concern here.

Works Cited:
Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, Soteriology. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.

# data[].attributes.body
Miller is the most modern scholar that we will examine here. He is the Charles T. Haley Professor of Old Testament Theology Emeritus at Princeton Theological Seminary and is and ordained pastor in the PCUSA Church. His writing considers the breadth of the commandment from historical context, to modern application. I will not seek to examine every area in which Miller speaks to, but will overview his most pertinent conclusions to show how the interpretation of this commandment has shifted over time between these four scholars.

# data[].attributes.body
Miller asserts that the primary claim of this commandment is, “is the protection of ones neighbors marriage over your own marriage”. In the context of the community the commandment implies reciprocity, whereby guarding against your neighbors marriage automatically protects your own (275). Beyond the function of the commandments claim, is to understand the commandments language as metaphor. Miller writes, “Adultery may serve as a metaphor for violating the relationship between God and the people. A violation that Miller includes prostitution also violates” (275). To understand adultery as a metaphor bolsters the overall claim of the commandment and marriage itself for Miller.

Miller claims that it is important to consider who this commandment was originally written to. He recognizes that it appears as though this commandment was originally written to the males, as the formulation of the commands is to not covet your neighbors wife (273). However, he interprets that this command is addressed to women as well, because the commandment is spoken to the whole community (273). If the commandment is indeed oriented toward all people then, and now as Miller claims, it would make sense of the examples of adultery in the Old Testament. Miller concludes that in the Old Testament, “Adultery,[is] a sexual relationship that betrays the deepest covenantal relationship between two persons” (291). From this breach of not just sexual intimacy, but the relationship as a whole it is fitting that marriage metaphor for the divine – human relationship runs throughout the Scriptures.

It is put forth by Miller that the commandments can, “only find their proper human analogy in the faithfulness of the marital relationship” (282). Therefore, the metaphor in relation to marriage of adultery is strikingly powerful especially in relation to the brokenness that comes with it. Miller makes note that these are especially prominent in Hosea 1-3 and Ezekiel 16 and 23 (282). In order to rightly understand the weightiness of the metaphor depends for Miller on seeing marriage as, “a covenant that joins the two parties together in a binding relationship and commitment that does not allow either one to commit to any other in the same way” (285). The commandment then for Miller is further expanded as revealed within the scriptures and the use of marriage and adultery metaphorically, in order that the hearers grasp importance of covenantal relationships. Miller writes, “the marriage analogy is indicative of what is at stake in the human adultery as much as it is an appropriate metaphor for the divine-human covenantal relationship” (288).

Works Cited:
Miller, Patrick D. The Ten Commandments: Resources for the Use of Scripture in the Church.Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2009.

# data[].attributes.body
These four scholars show a glimpse of how this commandment has been interpreted, and namely to show how those interpretation have changed over time. There are undoubtedly elements that are similar, and those that have drastically changed. Consider the questions below for further engagement:

1.    In what ways did you see the interpretation of this commandment change
from Luther to Miller as they represented a uniquely different theological perspective across history?

2.    Could you see and influences from their social locale in their interpretations?

3.    What influences your interpretative lens as you read the commandments?

4.    What considerations do you find most important when seeking to understand the meaning of the commandments?