Can there be ADULTERY without sexual intercourse?

[ewq1938]

can one do that without it being adultery

No.

 

[MerriestHouse]

<Staff Edit>

Joseph removed himself from the situation. Quickly.

People in the OT that were unfaithful to God set their affections on other gods. Did they have sex with other gods/idols? No. Were they married to God? Yes. Were they unfaithful to God? Yes. Did God say they committed adultery? Yes He did. He divorced them.

 

[Armoured]

How does one know for sure that one is not transgressing the important Commandment against adultery? <Staff Edit>

But what are we to make of Matthew 5:28? (Jesus said): "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

How is "lust" to be defined here? Surely one would have to actually WANT TO, nay, INTEND TO commit actual adultery for the "lust" to even begin to rise to the level of the actual act? (In parallel with the warning just prior that hating one's brother may lead to murder, so one should avoid it.)
One might do a lot of kissing and touching without any such intent - not only not to ever transgress the Commandment but to avoid any concerns about pregnancy and diseases.
And one could certainly "play around" without coveting, without wanting to make another person's spouse one's own.

If you can manage to "play around" without lusting for the person you're playing around with... frankly, I can't even imagine how that would work. Would I be out of line guessing we're looking for an after the fact technical loophole here? Generally speaking, I've always found "if you have to ask if it counts as cheating, it probably does" and "would I be comfortable with my SO doing this exact thing with someone else?" as pretty good guides to stay out of trouble.

 

[Goatee]

Just thinking about the person can be adultery. I know as i have done this too!

 

[MoonofIsaiah]

How does one know for sure that one is not transgressing the important Commandment against adultery? <Staff Edit>
But what are we to make of Matthew 5:28? (Jesus said): "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

How is "lust" to be defined here? Surely one would have to actually WANT TO, nay, INTEND TO commit actual adultery for the "lust" to even begin to rise to the level of the actual act? (In parallel with the warning just prior that hating one's brother may lead to murder, so one should avoid it.)
One might do a lot of kissing and touching without any such intent - not only not to ever transgress the Commandment but to avoid any concerns about pregnancy and diseases.
And one could certainly "play around" without coveting, without wanting to make another person's spouse one's own.

Holman Bible Dictionary
Adultery
is the act of unfaithfulness in marriage that occurs when one of the marriage partners voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse with a person of the opposite sex other than the marriage partner.[Full definition with scripture continues here]

 

[ewq1938]

I IMAGINE it might work IN CHURCH.

Scripture 5 times admonishes us to "Greet ye one another with a holy kiss," one time it reads: "KISS OF LOVE."

This is a platonic kiss on the cheek or in the air by the cheek (this is done today especially between celebrities etc)

Gill:

Romans 16:16
Salute one another with an holy kiss,.... Christian salutation is a wishing all temporal, spiritual, and eternal happiness, to one another; and which, as it should be mutual, should be also hearty and sincere, and this is meant by the "holy kiss"; the allusion is to a common custom in most nations, used by friends at meeting or parting, to kiss each other, in token of their hearty love, and sincere affection and friendship for each other; and is called "holy", to distinguish it from an unchaste and lascivious one; and from an hypocritical and deceitful one, such an one as Joab gave to Amasa, when, inquiring of his health, he took him by the beard to kiss him, and stabbed him under the fifth rib, 2Sa_20:9; and as Judas, who cried, hail master, to Christ, and kissed him, and betrayed him into the hands of his enemies, Mat_26:49. I say, it is an allusion to this custom, for it is only an allusion; the apostle did not mean that any outward action should be made use of, only that their Christian salutations should not be mere complaisance, or expressed by bare words, and outward gestures and actions, either of the hand or mouth; but that they should spring from real love and true friendship, and be without dissimulation, hearty and sincere:

 

[Armoured]

I IMAGINE it might work IN CHURCH.

Scripture 5 times admonishes us to "Greet ye one another with a holy kiss," one time it reads: "KISS OF LOVE."

ACTUAL LOVING (touching) in church, imagine that!

Admonitions (PREACHING) would be to avoid any conditions where "lusting for" (adultery) could be carried out - no being together alone with someone other than one's spouse.

I kiss people as a greeting, sure. Such greetings do not go for 15 minutes.

 

[ewq1938]

How can it be adultery if there is no sexual intercourse?

Because adultery doesn't rely upon that? Have you even read the posts in this thread??

 

[Goatee]

How can it be adultery if there is no sexual intercourse?

Sorry buddy but your questions are just not right!

 

[JoeP222w]

Jesus taught that adultery begins in the heart:

Matthew 5:27-28 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' (28) But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[JoeP222w]

I don't think the definition of lust removes the "desire" from the definition. Lust is immoral sexual desire for someone who is not your spouse. You can't define lust without "desire".

 

[1213]

God talking about lust illustrates that our thoughts can indeed pass from just temptations to sin - even before we act on our thoughts. I suppose you could talk about degrees - and say the thought is better than completing the thought - but the thought is still wrong. Certainly probably easier to stop ourselves when we are just thinking about it than when we begin to act on it. The line is crossed when we allow the temptation to linger in our head and actually start considering doing it.

I think you have good point. Every act that people do comes from the “heart” of person. Before any act, it is already done in the “heart”. And because of that, the wrong thing is what happens in the “heart”. The act is just only manifestation of what already happened in the “heart”. That is why it is enough and basically same if one has done wrongly in the “heart”. It doesn’t matter if person don’t manage to actually do the evil thing that he wants, because in his “heart” he is already guilty and the mind shows of unrighteousness.

For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.
Matt. 15:19

That is why:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also.
Matthew 23:25-26

Unfortunately it seems to me that also Christians seem to act like Pharisees and clean the cup outside, even though the inside should be first clean.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think you have good point. Every act that people do comes from the “heart” of person. Before any act, it is already done in the “heart”. And because of that, the wrong thing is what happens in the “heart”. The act is just only manifestation of what already happened in the “heart”. That is why it is enough and basically same if one has done wrongly in the “heart”. It doesn’t matter if person don’t manage to actually do the evil thing that he wants, because in his “heart” he is already guilty and the mind shows of unrighteousness.

For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.
Matt. 15:19

That is why:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and unrighteousness. You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the platter, that the outside of it may become clean also.
Matthew 23:25-26

Unfortunately it seems to me that also Christians seem to act like Pharisees and clean the cup outside, even though the inside should be first clean.

What if one wanted to do something in one's heart, and then changed one's mind? Is that as bad as if he/she actually did it? I would say, of course not. That would be the case of wanting to do it (at one time) NOT being as bad as actually doing it.

But what if one does not ever want to do it at all, that is NEVER wants to commit adultery. Yet does want to kiss and indeed does kiss PASSIONATELY for long periods of time? A KISS OF LOVE. And NOT desiring to have sexual intercourse. Obviously no adultery in heart or otherwise then, right?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

What if one wanted to do something in one's heart, and then changed one's mind? Is that as bad as if he/she actually did it? I would say, of course not. That would be the case of wanting to do it (at one time) NOT being as bad as actually doing it.

But what if one does not ever want to do it at all, that is NEVER wants to commit adultery. Yet does want to kiss and indeed does kiss PASSIONATELY for long periods of time? A KISS OF LOVE. And NOT desiring to have sexual intercourse. Obviously no adultery in heart or otherwise then, right?

gravity of a transgression is not relevant when asking if one made a transgression.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

gravity of a transgression is not relevant when asking if one made a transgression.

Are you trying to say,
1. Wanting to do it at one time (and changing one's mind) would be as bad as actually doing it?
Suppose it was somebody who wanted to murder you, and then changed their mind - same difference, SAME TRANSGRESSION? Of course that is errant nonsense!
OR 2. If we are asking whether someone transgressed against you (or against God), it doesn't matter whether that was to wish to kill you, or (later) wished not to? Or actually killed you?

 

[Cimorene]

I think there can be, because fidelity is more than just sexual monogamy isn't it?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I think there can be, because fidelity is more than just sexual monogamy isn't it?

Whatever those terms mean.
"Fidelity" is not defined as the lack of adultery (though it may include that). One can be faithful to the wedding vows - not the same as "no adultery" either, though would certainly include it. What is "sexual" monogamy? If that is what is usually called "monogamy," it may also be what you call "fidelity."

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Are you trying to say,
1. Wanting to do it at one time (and changing one's mind) would be as bad as actually doing it?
Suppose it was somebody who wanted to murder you, and then changed their mind - same difference, SAME TRANSGRESSION? Of course that is errant nonsense!
OR 2. If we are asking whether someone transgressed against you (or against God), it doesn't matter whether that was to wish to kill you, or (later) wished not to? Or actually killed you?

Same transgression (transgression means wrong - a sin), different gravity. The sin/transgression is still that of adultery. Yes some sins are worse than others - why Saint Paul spoke of mortal sins.

Dwelling on it (lust) is adultery that has yet to be acted on. Copping a feel or kissing someone as one should only kiss your spouse is acting on the thought.
Stopping oneself at ANY time is obviously better than continuing, but the transgression started before it was acted on.

That a person needs to be told these things and still objects sounds like a defendant who knows they are guilty trying to deny they did anything wrong. Too late.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I've already been accused of that. You can look back if you want to know my reply - redirected to the issue at hand I think.
What is the "it" of the lust? An adulterous act of sexual intercourse? Ok, but what I am trying to figure out is how that act differs from the act of kissing and the DESIRE FOR KISSING.
Where in the Bible does it say "one should only kiss your spouse"? It definitely says KISS ONE ANOTHER, that is greet ye one another with A KISS A HOLY KISS. (I don't mind understanding "an other" as being of the opposite sex.)
I know Christ suggested being "one flesh" but I think that is better understood as sexual intercourse and not as kissing.

May I ask how old you are?
The two ultimately become one flesh in making a baby, not having intercourse. A person just gratifying sexual desires is not becoming "one flesh" whether inside or outside marriage, at least not in any unified sense of the meaning behind God's Words about two becoming husband and wife.
Kissing on the lips or cheek as a greeting is no different than a hand shake unless one of the parties as desires towards the other person. Am unaware of any greeting custom where such a gesture involves tongue or open mouths or passion. In fact where the gesture is custom, it is even done between two people that despise each other- just as handshakes are. I do not think offering a holy kiss gives one grounds to lingering contact with a member of the opposite sex. If we are talking about an instance one's spouse witnessed and objected to - then I suggest one does not do that again regardless of what your intention was and because there was objection it probably was not a "holy kiss".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

May I ask how old you are?
The two ultimately become one flesh in making a baby, not having intercourse. A person just gratifying sexual desires is not becoming "one flesh" whether inside or outside marriage, at least not in any unified sense of the meaning behind God's Words about two becoming husband and wife.
Kissing on the lips or cheek as a greeting is no different than a hand shake unless one of the parties as desires towards the other person. Am unaware of any greeting custom where such a gesture involves tongue or open mouths or passion. In fact where the gesture is custom, it is even done between two people that despise each other- just as handshakes are. I do not think offering a holy kiss gives one grounds to lingering contact with a member of the opposite sex. If we are talking about an instance one's spouse witnessed and objected to - then I suggest one does not do that again regardless of what your intention was and because there was objection it probably was not a "holy kiss".

72, or 3. I don't much like to keep track.

That is an interesting CATHOLIC (perhaps) idea of "one flesh." I don't think it is truly scriptural, truly in agreement with what St Paul says about how the husband's body is the wive's, and vice versa.
I think it is the mating, the joining up of MALE AND FEMALE that Jesus refers to - the original idea of God. [I wanted to highlight this; guess I don't know how to do that yet.]

On "holy kiss," depends on what you think makes A KISS A HOLY KISS. I think doing in in church might be a move in that direction. And THE MORE IT IS A KISS OF LOVE THE BETTER, in accord with Holy Writ.
The longer the kiss the MORE LOVING it is, in my humble opinion.