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.

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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. 

 

 

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.

 

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?