BEREAN.AI ← Ask a Question

Biblical Accountability for Husband's Affairs and Pornography

Biblical texts and subsequent theological traditions consistently emphasize fidelity within marriage, holding husbands accountable for sexual immorality, including adultery and related transgressions. The foundational principle of marriage, established in Genesis 2:24 and reaffirmed by Jesus in Mark 10:6-8, is that a man and woman become "one flesh," implying exclusive union [1].

The Old Testament law explicitly prohibits adultery, listing it as one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:14) [8]. Under Mosaic law, adultery was defined as illicit intercourse between a man and a married or betrothed woman [6, 8]. Both parties found guilty of adultery were to be stoned to death [8]. While the Mosaic law regulated polygamy, allowing a man to have multiple wives, it strictly prohibited a wife from having more than one husband [9]. This legal framework underscores the husband's responsibility to be faithful to his wife, as indicated in Proverbs 5:19 and Malachi 2:14-15 [1].

The New Testament reinforces these standards. Hebrews 13:4 states, "Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, for, fornicators and adulterers, God, will judge" [3]. Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:2, advises that "because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband," further emphasizing marital exclusivity [4]. He also instructs husbands to fulfill their "marital duty to his wife" [2]. The apostle Paul condemns various forms of sexual immorality (πορνεία, porneia), which encompasses a broad range of illicit sexual acts beyond just adultery, including fornication and incest [7].

The concept of "sexual immorality" (πορνεία) in the New Testament is broad enough to include actions like engaging with pornography, as it violates the spirit of marital fidelity and the exclusive sexual union intended by God. While pornography is not explicitly named in ancient texts, the principles condemning lust and sexual sin apply. Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5:28, "But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart," extends the prohibition against adultery to internal thoughts and desires, which would encompass the consumption of pornography with lustful intent.

Theological traditions have further articulated these biblical principles. Augustine, a prominent Patristic father, viewed sexual intercourse within marriage as a duty for the conservation of the race, not merely for lust, emphasizing temperance and natural use [17]. He also discussed the permissibility of divorce in cases of fornication, indicating the gravity of such a breach of marital fidelity [19].

In the Catholic tradition, Thomas Aquinas addressed the "marriage debt," stating that a vow contrary to this debt cannot be taken without mutual consent, highlighting the reciprocal nature of marital duties [11]. Aquinas also affirmed that a husband could put away his wife on account of fornication, as a punishment for the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful one, though with certain exceptions [13]. He also discussed the annulment of marriage due to incest, demonstrating the strictness of marital purity [18].

Jewish rabbinic tradition, as seen in the Mishnah and Maimonides' Mishneh Torah, also details severe consequences for adultery and other forbidden sexual relations. Maimonides states that a woman who engages in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband, and he is obligated to divorce her [10, 14]. The Mishnah even describes scenarios where a single act of intercourse could incur multiple liabilities for sin offerings due to various prohibitions being violated simultaneously [12, 16]. Josephus, a Jewish historian, also notes that God will not receive children born from the prostitution of a woman's body, emphasizing the importance of legitimate unions [5].

Reformed theology, as exemplified by Charles Hodge, affirms the universal and timeless nature of prohibitions against sexual immorality, grounding them not in specific Jewish circumstances but in fundamental principles like "nearness of kin" [15]. This perspective underscores the enduring accountability for husbands to maintain fidelity and purity within their marriages, reflecting a consistent thread across diverse theological traditions.

Sources

  1. Torrey's Topical Textbook “Torrey's Topical Textbook: Husbands — Should have but one wife -- Ge 2:24; Mr 10:6-8; 1Co 7:2-4. Have authority over their wives -- Ge 3:16; 1Co 11:3; Eph 5:23. Duty of, to wives To respect them. -- 1Pe 3:7. To love them. -- Eph 5:25-33; Col 3:19. To regard them as themselves. -- Ge 2:23; Mt 19:5. To be faithful to them. -- Pr 5:19; Mal 2:14,15. To dwell with them for life. -- Ge 2:24; Mt 19:3-9. To comfort them. -- 1Sa 1:8. To consult with them. -- Ge 31:4-7. Not to leave them, though unbelieving. -- 1Co 7:11,12,14,16. Duties of, not to interfere with their duties to Christ -- Lu 14:26; Mt 19”
  2. I Corinthians “I Corinthians 7:3 (BSB) — The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.”
  3. Hebrews “Hebrews 13:4 (Rotherham) — Let marriage be honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, for, fornicators and adulterers, God, will judge.”
  4. I Corinthians “I Corinthians 7:2 (BSB) — But because there is so much sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.”
  5. Project Gutenberg “Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, CHAPTER 8, section 13: from the prostitution of her body, God will not receive; for by these means the dispositions of the children will be liberal and virtuous; I mean, when they are not born of base parents, and of the lustful conjunction of such as marry women that are not free. If any one has been espoused to a woman as to a virgin, and does not afterward find her so to be, let him bring his action, and accuse her, and let him make use of such indications 24 to prove his accusation as he is furnished withal; and let the father or the brother of th”
  6. Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Adultery — Conjugal infidelity. An adulterer was a man who had illicit intercourse with a married or a betrothed woman, and such a woman was an adulteress. Intercourse between a married man and an unmarried woman was fornication. Adultery was regarded as a great social wrong, as well as a great sin. The Mosaic law (Num. 5:11-31) prescribed that the suspected wife should be tried by the ordeal of the "water of jealousy." There is, however, no recorded instance of the application of this law. In subsequent times the Rabbis made various regulations with the view of disc”
  7. I Corinthians “I Corinthians 5:1 (BSB) — It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is intolerable even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife.”
  8. Smith's Bible Dictionary “Smith's Bible Dictionary: Adultery — (Exodus 20:14) The parties to this crime, according to Jewish law, were a married woman and a man who was not her husband. The Mosaic penalty was that both the guilty parties should be stoned, and it applied as well to the betrothed as to the married woman, provided she were free. (22:22-24) A bondwoman so offending was to be scourged, and the man was to make a trespass offering. (Leviticus 19:20-22) At a later time, and when owing, to Gentile example, the marriage tie became a looser bond of union, public feeling in regard to adultery changed, and the pena”
  9. Easton's Bible Dictionary “Easton's Bible Dictionary: Wife — The ordinance of marriage was sanctioned in Paradise (Gen. 2:24; Matt. 19:4-6). Monogamy was the original law under which man lived, but polygamy early commenced (Gen. 4:19), and continued to prevail all down through Jewish history. The law of Moses regulated but did not prohibit polygamy. A man might have a plurality of wives, but a wife could have only one husband. A wife's legal rights (Ex. 21:10) and her duties (Prov. 31:10-31; 1 Tim. 5:14) are specified. She could be divorced in special cases (Deut. 22:13-21), but could not divorce her husband. Divorce wa”
  10. Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Divorce 11:14: Included in this prohibition is that every woman who engaged in adulterous relations becomes forbidden to her husband. He is punished by lashes [for engaging in marital relations with her], 31 Note the Kessef Mishneh , which cites an apparent contradiction between the Rambam's statements here and those in Hilchot Issurei Bi'ah 1:22 and Hilchot Sanhedrin , Chapter 19, from which it would appear that a man is not punished by lashes for engaging in relations with his wife in such a situation. as [implied by the inclusion of the phrase] "”
  11. theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement (Supplementum), Of the Things Annexed to Marriage, and First of the Payment of the Marriage Debt, Art. 6: Article: Whether husband and wife can take a vow contrary to the marriage debt without their mutual consent? I answer that, A vow is a voluntary act, as its very name implies: and consequently a vow can only be about those goods which are subject to our will, and those in which one person is bound to another do not come under this head. Therefore in matters of this kind one person cannot take a vow without the consent of the one to whom he is bound. Co”
  12. Mishnah (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishnah, Mishnah Keritot 3:5: There is a case where one can engage in a single act of intercourse and be liable to bring six sin offerings for it. How so? It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter to be liable due to having violated the prohibitions of engaging in intercourse with his daughter, his sister, the wife of his brother, the wife of his father’s brother, a married woman, and a menstruating woman. It is possible for one who engages in intercourse with his daughter’s daughter to be liable to bring sin offerings due to the unwitting violation of the prohibition”
  13. theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement (Supplementum), Of the Impediment That Supervenes to Marriage after Its Consummation, Namely Fornication, Art. 1: Article: Whether it is lawful for a husband to put away his wife on account of fornication? I answer that, Our Lord permitted a man to put away his wife on account of fornication, in punishment of the unfaithful party and in favor of the faithful party, so that the latter is not bound to marital intercourse with the unfaithful one. There are however seven cases to be excepted in which it is not lawful to put away a wife who has committed fornic”
  14. Mishneh Torah (Maimonides) (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Mishneh Torah (Maimonides), Mishneh Torah%2C Marriage 24:17: When a man sees his wife commit adultery, or he was informed of this by one of his relatives or her relatives - whether male or female - whom he trusts and whose statements he believes, he is obligated to divorce her and is forbidden to engage in relations with her, 40 When a married woman has committed adultery, she is forbidden to engage in sexual relations with her husband in the future. (Similarly, she is forbidden to engage in relations with the adulterer.) Since her husband either saw the matter himself or heard it from a perso”
  15. CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: that question, that it always has been regarded as obligatory by the whole Christian Church. 2. The reason assigned for the prohibition contained in that law, has no special reference to the Jews. It is not found is their peculiar circumstances, nor in the design of God in selecting 411 them to be depositaries of his truth to prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah. The reason assigned “is nearness of kin.” This reason has as much force at one time as at another, for all nations as for any one nation. There was nothing peculiar in”
  16. Babylonian Talmud (Jewish (Rabbinic)) “Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot 22b.10: § The Sages taught: He who unwittingly engages in sexual relations with his sister, who is the daughter of his father’s lawful wife, is liable and must bring two sin-offerings. He must bring one sin-offering because she is his sister and another because she is the daughter of his father’s wife, which is mentioned in a separate verse in the Torah. Rabbi Yosei ben Yehuda says: He is liable only because she is his sister alone, and not because of the prohibition against engaging in sexual relations with the daughter of his father’s wife.”
  17. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 3: Augustine — On the Holy Trinity — ON THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE. (part 19): living here, but from duty of being useful(2), takes food that he may remain in the flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others; so to have intercourse with females in right of marriage, was to holy men at that time a matter of duty not of lust. 18. For what food is unto the conservation of the man, this sexual intercourse is unto the conservation of the race: and both are not without carnal delight: which yet being modified, and by restraint of temperance reduced unto the use after nature, cannot be lust.(”
  18. theology (Catholic (Scholastic)) “Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Supplement (Supplementum), Of the Impediments of Impotence, Spell, Frenzy or Madness, Incest and Defective Age, Art. 4: Article: Whether marriage is annulled by the husband committing incest with his wife's sister? I answer that, If a man has connection with the sister or other relative of his wife before contracting marriage, even after his betrothal, the marriage should be broken off on account of the resultant affinity. If, however, the connection take place after the marriage has been contracted and consummated, the marriage must not be altogether dissolved: but ”
  19. Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “NPNF1 Vol 6: Augustine — Homilies on the Gospels — CHAP. XVI.--43. Here there arises a second question, when the Lord allows a wife to be put away for the cause of fornication, in what latitude of meaning fornication is to be understood in this passag (part 4): their believing wives; and although not mentioning names, he yet urged his case by examples, in order to strengthen his counsel. Then he goes on to say, "Else were your children unclean; but now are they holy." For now the children were Christians, who were sanctified at the instance of one of the parents, or with the consent of both; w”
Ask Your Own Question
About Terms Privacy Contact

© 2026 BEREAN.AI. All rights reserved.