Sexuality & The Old Testament
(Part 3 of the essay)
From Dogma to Dialogue
Before turning to the Bible's teaching on sexuality, I should say something about dogma. The word 'dogma' is a good word fallen on hard times. Originally it just meant "belief, opinion, tenet," and indeed it still can mean these. But nowadays it -- or its adjective 'dogmatic' -- often mean in practice a belief held with little regard for evidence and expressed in an angry, ugly way.
Take as an example the literalist understanding of early Genesis: To the degree that people actually thought about texts and how to understand them, the traditional belief that God acted as the letters on the pages of Genesis 1 - 3 show Him working was dominant for centuries. But the last two centuries have brought amazing discoveries in the physical and life sciences and in the history of the Ancient Near East. They've also produced new and insightful ways to think about ancient texts and the stories they tell. It is now impossible to talk about Genesis without engaging this other, more recent knowledge. It is also, as I have argued, now quite difficult to hold to the traditional, literalist understanding of Genesis and remain intellectually credible.
To be clear, I am not retelling here the tired story of how people long ago were ignorant and brutish, but we nowadays are so much smarter and nicer. That anyone who holds to a traditionalist perspective -- either as to the age of the earth or as to human sexuality -- is ipso facto an intolerant ignoramus. There have been plenty of secular fundamentalists in the last two centuries. From the eugenists of the early-twentieth century to the New Atheist devotees of scientism in our day, it is clear that religious people don’t have the lock on arid and ugly belief systems hermetically sealed off from reason, mystery, and love.
Nevertheless, this essay is directed not toward the secular fundamentalist but to the religious person who may have confused respect for tradition and honor for Scripture with an absolutism about sexuality in general -- and homosexuality in particular -- that goes beyond what a humble, God-honoring rationality permits and, truth be told, demands.
Now, I’ve written about what it means to be a Christian intellectual, to pursue the life of the mind as a believing Christian. Here, I want to underscore what that involves when it comes to controversial issues: A basic epistemological point arising from Christian theology is that the knowledge one gets from Christian Scripture and tradition must be reconciled -- or at the very least, a dialogue must ensue -- with the knowledge arising from other sources. This is because -- to state an axiom -- All truth is God’s truth.
As to the present matter, there is a “bust” -- an apparent conflict -- between the traditional Christian understanding and both the testimony of gay people and the evidence (as marshalled above) relative to homosexuality and human flourishing. I have a duty as a thinking person -- that is, as someone who reflects that aspect of the Imago Dei having to do with the mind -- to try to harmonize these data. Starting from the fundamentalist position of “God says it, I believe it, that settles it” when it comes to homosexuality -- rather than engaging in dialogue -- is to prejudge the question from the side of a traditionalist understanding of Scripture.
So, Christian faith rightly understood should push us to move from dogma to dialogue. Another reason to dialogue is, as I stated at the outset, this issue is not going away. If we’re to retain any kind of shared civic life in our nation, both traditionalists and their detractors must be able to speak to this issue from more than an absolutist perspective. Again, part of the Christian creed involves reconciliation, coming to peace with our apparent enemies. That doesn’t mean throwing important beliefs overboard. It does mean, as a thinking person fully alive to the possibility that I might have something to learn from another, that I continue to listen, continue to dialogue, and continue to examine my beliefs in the light of evidence.
Before turning to the Bible's teaching on sexuality, I should say something about dogma. The word 'dogma' is a good word fallen on hard times. Originally it just meant "belief, opinion, tenet," and indeed it still can mean these. But nowadays it -- or its adjective 'dogmatic' -- often mean in practice a belief held with little regard for evidence and expressed in an angry, ugly way.
Take as an example the literalist understanding of early Genesis: To the degree that people actually thought about texts and how to understand them, the traditional belief that God acted as the letters on the pages of Genesis 1 - 3 show Him working was dominant for centuries. But the last two centuries have brought amazing discoveries in the physical and life sciences and in the history of the Ancient Near East. They've also produced new and insightful ways to think about ancient texts and the stories they tell. It is now impossible to talk about Genesis without engaging this other, more recent knowledge. It is also, as I have argued, now quite difficult to hold to the traditional, literalist understanding of Genesis and remain intellectually credible.
To be clear, I am not retelling here the tired story of how people long ago were ignorant and brutish, but we nowadays are so much smarter and nicer. That anyone who holds to a traditionalist perspective -- either as to the age of the earth or as to human sexuality -- is ipso facto an intolerant ignoramus. There have been plenty of secular fundamentalists in the last two centuries. From the eugenists of the early-twentieth century to the New Atheist devotees of scientism in our day, it is clear that religious people don’t have the lock on arid and ugly belief systems hermetically sealed off from reason, mystery, and love.
Nevertheless, this essay is directed not toward the secular fundamentalist but to the religious person who may have confused respect for tradition and honor for Scripture with an absolutism about sexuality in general -- and homosexuality in particular -- that goes beyond what a humble, God-honoring rationality permits and, truth be told, demands.
Now, I’ve written about what it means to be a Christian intellectual, to pursue the life of the mind as a believing Christian. Here, I want to underscore what that involves when it comes to controversial issues: A basic epistemological point arising from Christian theology is that the knowledge one gets from Christian Scripture and tradition must be reconciled -- or at the very least, a dialogue must ensue -- with the knowledge arising from other sources. This is because -- to state an axiom -- All truth is God’s truth.
As to the present matter, there is a “bust” -- an apparent conflict -- between the traditional Christian understanding and both the testimony of gay people and the evidence (as marshalled above) relative to homosexuality and human flourishing. I have a duty as a thinking person -- that is, as someone who reflects that aspect of the Imago Dei having to do with the mind -- to try to harmonize these data. Starting from the fundamentalist position of “God says it, I believe it, that settles it” when it comes to homosexuality -- rather than engaging in dialogue -- is to prejudge the question from the side of a traditionalist understanding of Scripture.
So, Christian faith rightly understood should push us to move from dogma to dialogue. Another reason to dialogue is, as I stated at the outset, this issue is not going away. If we’re to retain any kind of shared civic life in our nation, both traditionalists and their detractors must be able to speak to this issue from more than an absolutist perspective. Again, part of the Christian creed involves reconciliation, coming to peace with our apparent enemies. That doesn’t mean throwing important beliefs overboard. It does mean, as a thinking person fully alive to the possibility that I might have something to learn from another, that I continue to listen, continue to dialogue, and continue to examine my beliefs in the light of evidence.
Sexuality in the Old Testament
All Christian teaching has its fountainhead in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. As scholar N.T. Wright has argued, the picture that emerges there -- and which is reinforced throughout Scripture -- is creational monotheism. That is to say, the Jewish and Christian worldview gets off the ground by positing a God who is one, who is separate and distinct from our reality, and yet who created that reality as good. (1)
Not only does Genesis speak of grand cosmic events like the creation of the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth. It also tells us that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) (2) In fact, we’re told that “[t]he Lord God formed [the] 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)
Human sexuality is an essential piece of this story. Though all was good, things were incomplete without both female and male. And so God took from Adam a part from which he formed Eve, such that Adam could then say of her:
All Christian teaching has its fountainhead in the first chapters of the Book of Genesis. As scholar N.T. Wright has argued, the picture that emerges there -- and which is reinforced throughout Scripture -- is creational monotheism. That is to say, the Jewish and Christian worldview gets off the ground by positing a God who is one, who is separate and distinct from our reality, and yet who created that reality as good. (1)
Not only does Genesis speak of grand cosmic events like the creation of the sun, the moon, the stars, and the earth. It also tells us that “God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27) (2) In fact, we’re told that “[t]he Lord God formed [the] 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)
Human sexuality is an essential piece of this story. Though all was good, things were incomplete without both female and male. And so God took from Adam a part from which he formed Eve, such that Adam could then say of her:
“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
(Genesis 2:23)
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
(Genesis 2:23)
And in their union male and female become “one flesh.”
These realities are beautifully captured by the first lines of the Creed of the Iona Community: “We believe in God above us, maker and sustainer of all life, of sun and moon, of water and earth, of male and female.”
As we know, this idyll didn’t last: Adam and Eve were tempted by the Serpent, ate of the forbidden tree, sinned against God, and were driven from the Garden. Several of the “curses” of the Fall concern sexuality: Nakedness became a thing of shame. The woman would bear children in pain. And frustrations and dominations would infect the relationship between woman and man. (3)
These realities are beautifully captured by the first lines of the Creed of the Iona Community: “We believe in God above us, maker and sustainer of all life, of sun and moon, of water and earth, of male and female.”
As we know, this idyll didn’t last: Adam and Eve were tempted by the Serpent, ate of the forbidden tree, sinned against God, and were driven from the Garden. Several of the “curses” of the Fall concern sexuality: Nakedness became a thing of shame. The woman would bear children in pain. And frustrations and dominations would infect the relationship between woman and man. (3)
Same-sex Relations in the Old Testament
For all of the debate over Christianity and homosexuality it is remarkable how little is actually said about the topic in the Bible. The famous story about the destruction of Sodom -- a city that lent its name to sex acts that are not procreative, especially to gay sex -- has little to tell us about homosexuality per se. We know that Sodom and Gomorrah were thought very wicked. Yet the “sin of Sodom” is best understood either as the particular evil of the attempted gang-rape of Lot’s mysterious visitors or of a general failure of hospitality. (4)
The only place that homosexuality is explicitly forbidden -- and that only of the male sort -- in the Old Testament is in what's known as the Holiness Code in the Book of Leviticus (chapters 17-26). (5) Scholars use this name due to the frequent repetition of the word 'holy' in it. For example: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.' " (19:1,2)
While the purpose and provenance of the Holiness Code are complex, it is clear that a central aim is to lay down behavioral “markers” that identify God’s holy people of Israel as distinct from the surrounding nations.
For all of the debate over Christianity and homosexuality it is remarkable how little is actually said about the topic in the Bible. The famous story about the destruction of Sodom -- a city that lent its name to sex acts that are not procreative, especially to gay sex -- has little to tell us about homosexuality per se. We know that Sodom and Gomorrah were thought very wicked. Yet the “sin of Sodom” is best understood either as the particular evil of the attempted gang-rape of Lot’s mysterious visitors or of a general failure of hospitality. (4)
The only place that homosexuality is explicitly forbidden -- and that only of the male sort -- in the Old Testament is in what's known as the Holiness Code in the Book of Leviticus (chapters 17-26). (5) Scholars use this name due to the frequent repetition of the word 'holy' in it. For example: “The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the entire assembly of Israel and say to them: Be holy because I, the Lord your God, am holy.' " (19:1,2)
While the purpose and provenance of the Holiness Code are complex, it is clear that a central aim is to lay down behavioral “markers” that identify God’s holy people of Israel as distinct from the surrounding nations.
|
“The Lord said to Moses, ‘Speak to the Israelites and say to them: “I am the Lord your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices. You must obey my laws and be careful to follow my decrees. I am the Lord your God. Keep my decrees and laws, for the person who obeys them will live by them. I am the Lord.”'" (18:1-5)
|
Because the Canaanites committed the various acts forbidden in the Code, we’re told that the land of Canaan “vomited” them out. God warns the same will happen to the Israelites if they commit such acts. (18:25 inter alia) The worship of the god Molek, which involved the cultic practice of child sacrifice, is also in the background. Such worship and practice were detestable to God. (18:21 inter alia)
A central feature of the Holiness Code is its prohibitions on various kinds of sexual deviancy, including incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. Two verses condemn the latter.
A central feature of the Holiness Code is its prohibitions on various kinds of sexual deviancy, including incest, bestiality, and homosexuality. Two verses condemn the latter.
|
“Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.” (18:22)
“If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” (20:13) |
These are the only explicit references to homosexual acts in the Old Testament. As has been observed, the fact that the practice is mentioned counts as evidence that it was not unknown.
Heterosexual Relations in the Old Testament
There are of course other sex practices -- specifically, heterosexual ones -- forbidden in the Old Testament. There are two basic concepts here, translated from the Hebrew as 'adultery' ('naaph') and 'fornication' (equals 'sexual immorality' in many translations) ('zanah'). The Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14) forbids adultery: unfaithfulness to a marriage vow. So, adultery involves breaking a fixed relational commitment. It is critical to attend to the social context into which these Old Testament passages were directed: a traditional society that was male-centric and patriarchal. As scholars William Raccah and Douglas Mangum write:
There are of course other sex practices -- specifically, heterosexual ones -- forbidden in the Old Testament. There are two basic concepts here, translated from the Hebrew as 'adultery' ('naaph') and 'fornication' (equals 'sexual immorality' in many translations) ('zanah'). The Seventh Commandment (Exodus 20:14) forbids adultery: unfaithfulness to a marriage vow. So, adultery involves breaking a fixed relational commitment. It is critical to attend to the social context into which these Old Testament passages were directed: a traditional society that was male-centric and patriarchal. As scholars William Raccah and Douglas Mangum write:
|
The social practices described in the Old Testament and the laws regulating sexuality generally reflect common ancient Near Eastern ideas about marriage and the family, which tended to emphasize stability within the social and economic relationships of the households in local community. When a woman married, her marriage made a political and economic covenant between her household and the household of her husband. In ancient Israel, adultery was viewed primarily as a crime against society, and only secondarily as a crime against the husband. (6)
|
So, the focus was on the community that suffered a loss of social stability, as well as on the man who was wronged by the act of adultery -- the husband of the adulteress. The offense to the adulterer’s wife was not a central concern. Indeed, the adulteress herself really only “counted” inasmuch as she, in a practical sense, belonged to her husband and brought shame upon him by her action. The punishment for adultery as set out in Leviticus (20:10) and Deuteronomy (22:22) was incredibly severe: death.
The other concept -- fornication or sexual immorality -- is more complicated. Conservative Christians often assume that the Old Testament considers all extramarital sex to be prohibited, with this divided without remainder into adultery and fornication. This is too simplistic. (7)
The etymology of the English word 'fornication' is instructive. The Latin word 'fornix' referred to an arch or vaulted opening. However, it was also a euphemism for a brothel, since prostitutes often worked in such places. So, 'to fornicate' originally meant "to visit a brothel to use a prostitute." Nowadays, 'fornication', though a somewhat out-of-date word, when it is used usually means "any extramarital sex besides adultery." But the choice of the early translators (e.g., the KJV) to render the Hebrew 'zanah' as 'fornication' made sense, inasmuch as 'zanah' involves the idea of paying for sex.
In fact prostitution itself is never explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament, and the use of prostitutes was likely not uncommon among Israelite men. Since prostitutes were among the lowest strata of society, sex with a prostitute didn’t “count” in the way that sex with a reputable woman would. One conclusion from this line of thought is that there may be room in Old Testament sexual ethics for types of extramarital sex that are not prohibited. I shall have more to say on this question later. (8)
Not unlike contemporary usage, both adultery and fornication are often taken metaphorically in the Old Testament. Israel’s worship of idols and her giving herself over to the gods these represent are often referred to in terms of adultery -- breaking the covenant vow between God and Israel -- or of prostitution -- selling herself out to be used and abused by these gods and the nations that worship them. (See, for example, Jeremiah 2 and 3, Ezekiel 16, and all of Hosea.)
Let us turn now to the New Testament's teaching on sexuality.
The other concept -- fornication or sexual immorality -- is more complicated. Conservative Christians often assume that the Old Testament considers all extramarital sex to be prohibited, with this divided without remainder into adultery and fornication. This is too simplistic. (7)
The etymology of the English word 'fornication' is instructive. The Latin word 'fornix' referred to an arch or vaulted opening. However, it was also a euphemism for a brothel, since prostitutes often worked in such places. So, 'to fornicate' originally meant "to visit a brothel to use a prostitute." Nowadays, 'fornication', though a somewhat out-of-date word, when it is used usually means "any extramarital sex besides adultery." But the choice of the early translators (e.g., the KJV) to render the Hebrew 'zanah' as 'fornication' made sense, inasmuch as 'zanah' involves the idea of paying for sex.
In fact prostitution itself is never explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament, and the use of prostitutes was likely not uncommon among Israelite men. Since prostitutes were among the lowest strata of society, sex with a prostitute didn’t “count” in the way that sex with a reputable woman would. One conclusion from this line of thought is that there may be room in Old Testament sexual ethics for types of extramarital sex that are not prohibited. I shall have more to say on this question later. (8)
Not unlike contemporary usage, both adultery and fornication are often taken metaphorically in the Old Testament. Israel’s worship of idols and her giving herself over to the gods these represent are often referred to in terms of adultery -- breaking the covenant vow between God and Israel -- or of prostitution -- selling herself out to be used and abused by these gods and the nations that worship them. (See, for example, Jeremiah 2 and 3, Ezekiel 16, and all of Hosea.)
Let us turn now to the New Testament's teaching on sexuality.
Footnotes:
(1) The best "official" statement of what creational monotheism amounts to is in Wright's book The New Testament and the People of God, beginning on page 244 and then following. But it's a bedrock idea for Wright and crops up throughout his massive output of books, articles, sermons, speeches, and so on. Perhaps only C.S. Lewis has had more influence on my faith, at the level of ideas, than N.T. Wright.
The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
(2) All quotations from Scripture are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.
(3) For a general overview of sexuality in the Bible, the entry “Sexuality” by Matthew Beal in The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) is excellent. The LBD is a new, free, and excellent Bible dictionary. It's available online through the Faithlife Study Bible "portal" (bible.faithlife.com). In my study of the relevant entries while writing this essay, I have found it thoughtful and fair. I rely on it (though not uncritically) in several places here.
(4) We first learn of God’s contempt for Sodom and its wickedness in Genesis 13:13. God’s general condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah are in the general background in the subsequent chapters. In the latter half of Genesis 18 we find the moving story of Abraham pleading with God to have mercy on Sodom. And Genesis 19 of course contains the story of Lot, his angelic visitors, the attempted gang-rape, and the subsequent destruction of the two cities. All through the Bible -- Old and New Testaments alike -- Sodom and Gomorrah are bywords for both epic levels of evil and concomitant judgment by God. Again, though, there is little said about the particulars of the wickedness involved. Ezekiel writes (16:49,50): “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” While Jude tells us (1:7) that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Why Christians should conclude that Jude’s statement of the “sin of Sodom” is more salient than Ezekiel’s, I cannot say. It seems to me that such a preference is reflected in conservative evangelicals’ focus on sexual sins rather than on sins against justice. In any event, the text in Jude isn't definitive that the "sin of Sodom" is consensual same-sex relations. (Saying that that's what 'perversion' means is to assume something that needs to be established.) In any event, the original story in Genesis can't bear such interpretive weight.
(5) A possible exception is the passage on “dogs” at Deuteronomy 23:18. Some have detected homoerotic overtones in the stories of David and Jonathan and of Ruth and Naomi. I don't see that. Indeed, this seems a clear example of people reading into texts what they want to see. For an excellent discussion of the Holiness Code see that entry in the LBD.
(6) From their entry, “Adultery in the Ancient Near East” from LBD.
(7) See, for example, the entry “adultery” in The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by Larry Richards. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Regency Reference Library, c1985).
(8) I’m aware of Proverbs’ admonition for young men to avoid prostitutes -- not to mention “the adulterous woman” -- but this doesn’t rise to the level of a command given in the Law. There were laws regulating prostitution, including the command that fathers shouldn’t sell their daughters into prostitution (Leviticus 19:29). For all of this, see the entry “Sexuality, Critical Issues” in the LBD by Karen R. Keen. There was also a distinction between cultic and common prostitution, though what the former amounted to is apparently controversial.
Credits for images:
"Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law" by Rembrandt
By Web Gallery of Art: Image Info about artwork, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15417276
5th century "Garden of Eden" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, Italy.
By Petar Milošević - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39937959
Salt mounds in Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia
By Luca Galuzzi - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1820055
"Arches" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/329
(1) The best "official" statement of what creational monotheism amounts to is in Wright's book The New Testament and the People of God, beginning on page 244 and then following. But it's a bedrock idea for Wright and crops up throughout his massive output of books, articles, sermons, speeches, and so on. Perhaps only C.S. Lewis has had more influence on my faith, at the level of ideas, than N.T. Wright.
The New Testament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992).
(2) All quotations from Scripture are from the NIV unless otherwise noted.
(3) For a general overview of sexuality in the Bible, the entry “Sexuality” by Matthew Beal in The Lexham Bible Dictionary (LBD) is excellent. The LBD is a new, free, and excellent Bible dictionary. It's available online through the Faithlife Study Bible "portal" (bible.faithlife.com). In my study of the relevant entries while writing this essay, I have found it thoughtful and fair. I rely on it (though not uncritically) in several places here.
(4) We first learn of God’s contempt for Sodom and its wickedness in Genesis 13:13. God’s general condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah are in the general background in the subsequent chapters. In the latter half of Genesis 18 we find the moving story of Abraham pleading with God to have mercy on Sodom. And Genesis 19 of course contains the story of Lot, his angelic visitors, the attempted gang-rape, and the subsequent destruction of the two cities. All through the Bible -- Old and New Testaments alike -- Sodom and Gomorrah are bywords for both epic levels of evil and concomitant judgment by God. Again, though, there is little said about the particulars of the wickedness involved. Ezekiel writes (16:49,50): “Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.” While Jude tells us (1:7) that “Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Why Christians should conclude that Jude’s statement of the “sin of Sodom” is more salient than Ezekiel’s, I cannot say. It seems to me that such a preference is reflected in conservative evangelicals’ focus on sexual sins rather than on sins against justice. In any event, the text in Jude isn't definitive that the "sin of Sodom" is consensual same-sex relations. (Saying that that's what 'perversion' means is to assume something that needs to be established.) In any event, the original story in Genesis can't bear such interpretive weight.
(5) A possible exception is the passage on “dogs” at Deuteronomy 23:18. Some have detected homoerotic overtones in the stories of David and Jonathan and of Ruth and Naomi. I don't see that. Indeed, this seems a clear example of people reading into texts what they want to see. For an excellent discussion of the Holiness Code see that entry in the LBD.
(6) From their entry, “Adultery in the Ancient Near East” from LBD.
(7) See, for example, the entry “adultery” in The Expository Dictionary of Bible Words by Larry Richards. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Regency Reference Library, c1985).
(8) I’m aware of Proverbs’ admonition for young men to avoid prostitutes -- not to mention “the adulterous woman” -- but this doesn’t rise to the level of a command given in the Law. There were laws regulating prostitution, including the command that fathers shouldn’t sell their daughters into prostitution (Leviticus 19:29). For all of this, see the entry “Sexuality, Critical Issues” in the LBD by Karen R. Keen. There was also a distinction between cultic and common prostitution, though what the former amounted to is apparently controversial.
Credits for images:
"Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law" by Rembrandt
By Web Gallery of Art: Image Info about artwork, Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15417276
5th century "Garden of Eden" mosaic in mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, Italy.
By Petar Milošević - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39937959
Salt mounds in Salar de Uyuni, Bolivia
By Luca Galuzzi - Own work, CC BY-SA 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1820055
"Arches" from https://pxhere.com/en/photo/329