LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I would say that the "trying" is, indeed, an act that can be defined on a case by case basis. Our thoughts, wicked though they may be on occasion, are not sin until we act on them.

Probably not a single action, but a whole bunch of acts that add up to really trying?

Any ideas about how we know it is really enough to constitute ACTUAL COVETING?
Would that not have to be "proven" by the woman involved actually becoming his wife?

 

[AFrazier]

Probably not a single action, but a whole bunch of acts that add up to really trying?

Any ideas about how we know it is really enough to constitute ACTUAL COVETING?
Would that not have to be "proven" by the woman involved actually becoming his wife?

Well that's sort of the point. If she became his wife (when she was already married to another man), then it would be actual adultery, whereas trying to make her his wife (when she already belonged to another) constitutes covetousness, which, by Christ's standard, is adultery by intent. It's been said that you shall not commit adultery, but if a man covet's another man's wife, then he has committed adultery in his heart. That's the whole point of the teaching.

Where people err on this whole thing is when they try to make it about sexual desire. A girl makes you think about sex, and WHAM, you've committed adultery. And that's simply not what Christ is saying in this passage.

The context is adultery, and adultery, in the context of his statement, requires the woman to be married already. So this whole thing is about coveting your neighbor's wife, which is in the ten commandments. You shall not commit adultery. But neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife. And in the case of this teaching, he's explaining that the two are related.

It is a grave misconception to believe that Christ added anything to the scriptures. He made a conspicuous point not to challenge the judgments and rulings of those who "sit in Moses' seat," just as he mounted a lawful defense for all challenges made to him concerning the things he did. This passage is no different. He's not adding something new. He's clarifying something old. And once a person comes to recognize this truth, the intent of the passage emerges.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Well that's sort of the point. If she became his wife (when she was already married to another man), then it would be actual adultery, whereas trying to make her his wife (when she already belonged to another) constitutes covetousness, which, by Christ's standard, is adultery by intent. It's been said that you shall not commit adultery, but if a man covet's another man's wife, then he has committed adultery in his heart. That's the whole point of the teaching.

Now becoming his WIFE constitutes adultery?
I never heard this strange idea before.

A question comes to mind, would that be the case if the marriage was never consumated?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You shall not commit adultery. But neither shall you covet your neighbor's wife. And in the case of this teaching, he's explaining that the two are related.

The exact relation does not yet seem fully clear (to me, if I can be personal?).

SO, the coveting is "adultery in the heart."

THAT IS THE RELATION, right?

Which does NOT mean it is adultery - it is still coveting, right?

2 DIFFERENT THINGS - 2 DIFFERENT COMMANDMENTS.

What else can be said of the relation between adultery and coveting the neighbor's wife?

 

[AFrazier]

Now becoming his WIFE constitutes adultery?
I never heard this strange idea before.

A question comes to mind, would that be the case if the marriage was never consumated?

Seriously ... it's difficult to have a conversation if your counterpart isn't going to read what you write.

Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else.

 

[AFrazier]

The exact relation does not yet seem fully clear (to me, if I can be personal?).

SO, the coveting is "adultery in the heart."

THAT IS THE RELATION, right?

Which does NOT mean it is adultery - it is still coveting, right?

2 DIFFERENT THINGS - 2 DIFFERENT COMMANDMENTS.

What else can be said of the relation between adultery and coveting the neighbor's wife?

Two different things. Two different commandments. But when the coveting is of your neighbor's wife, then the act of coveting becomes adultery by extension via intent. You intend to take the woman that belongs to your neighbor, and so it becomes adultery "in your heart." That is the lesson Jesus is teaching.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Seriously ... it's difficult to have a conversation if your counterpart isn't going to read what you write.

Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else.

I agree very much with the first point.

Over and above that, there can be difficulties in reading and understanding based on what is actually written.

SO, what is one supposed to make of, "Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else."?

Is that a question?
If it is an answer, what is it the answer to?

Does whether she's married to somebody else affect how "consummation" of her (second marriage) affects the status of said marriage?
Or is it about something else entirely?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Two different things. Two different commandments. But when the coveting is of your neighbor's wife, then the act of coveting becomes adultery by extension via intent. You intend to take the woman that belongs to your neighbor, and so it becomes adultery "in your heart." That is the lesson Jesus is teaching.

"Adultery by extension via intent." Another new concept?

It becomes (or is?) adultery "in your heart."
That it becomes adultery, real adultery? (Invariably leads to?)

Is one trying to claim this is actual adultery?

OR is one maintaining there are always "two different things"?

 

[AFrazier]

Sorry dude. I'm being plenty clear. If you can't understand the simplicity of what I'm saying, then I don't know what else to tell you. I'm out of patience with this.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Sorry dude. I'm being plenty clear. If you can't understand the simplicity of what I'm saying, then I don't know what else to tell you. I'm out of patience with this.

IF this is addressed to me, you might at least TRY to complete your sentence,
"Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else."

You "don't know what else to tell me"? Meaning you could not possibly make that a more complete sentence so I could begin to understand what claim is being made?

Someone please tell me where I can find someone who wants to have a serious dialogue and tackle difficult questions.

 

[AFrazier]

IF this is addressed to me, you might at least TRY to complete your sentence,
"Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else."

You "don't know what else to tell me"? Meaning you could not possibly make that a more complete sentence so I could begin to understand what claim is being made?

Someone please tell me where I can find someone who wants to have a serious dialogue and tackle difficult questions.

I said: "If she became his wife (when she was already married to another man), then it would be actual adultery, whereas trying to make her his wife (when she already belonged to another) constitutes covetousness, which, by Christ's standard, is adultery by intent."

You then asked: "Now becoming his WIFE constitutes adultery? I never heard this strange idea before."

And I clarified in response to your question: "Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else," as was stated in the previous post above. And so I also complained that, "it's difficult to have a conversation if your counterpart isn't going to read what you write."

You then asked: "SO, what is one supposed to make of, "Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else."?"

And at that point I lost my patience with this conversation, because you do not appear to be reading what I'm writing, and it gets old having to repeat myself and answer the same questions over and over again because someone either chooses to ignore what I'm writing, or simply can't understand me.

Did that answer your question?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I clarified in response to your question: "Becoming his wife when she's already married to someone else," as was stated in the previous post above.
Did that answer your question?

It helped, thanks.

I think part of the problem (in my own mind at least) arose over the difference between being married already, and having been married when the adultery is said to take place. The suggestion to my mind was a sort of bigamy or "polgyamy for woman" was part of that - the formulation used most meaning "already married." I guess there's generally a divorce there which wasn't mentioned?
Is a divorce necessary WHEN THERE IS ACTUAL ADULTERY IN THE WAKE OF HEART "ADULTERY"?
The way we understand adultery is there can be a lot of adultery without those engaged in such being married to each other or ever becoming married to each other.
I guess this usual understanding of ADULTERY has "nothing to do with" what Jesus spoke of in Matthew 5:28?

SO, what you are saying is the English "lust" should really be "covet," which agrees with use of the same Greek in the Commandment.
AND if there is coveting of the neighbor's wife, that is appropriately called "adultery in the heart."
SO IT IS NOT ABOUT SEXUAL DESIRE, and not about adultery (itself).
It is about transgression of the Commandments well before adultery if there is THE PURSUIT OF ADULTERY.
(I guess there may be "committed" adultery in heart without there ever being actual adultery?)

Is "pursuit of adultery" a correct formulation to summarize what is being pointed to in Matthew 5:28?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Ergo, what Jesus is saying concerning adultery is that while the law says, “you shall not commit adultery,” if you try to take her, the attempt makes you just as guilty. The effort is equal to the act, whether you succeed or not. Thus, it’s not the surreptitious look or the sexual thought that’s the problem, but the witty joke or inappropriate touch with the motive of eliciting a reciprocated attraction. In other words, it has nothing to do with them inadvertently attracting your attention, but about you deliberately attracting theirs to win their affection. That is what it is to covet your neighbor’s spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend.

"The effort is equal to the act" in the sense that the effort (coveting) is like unto actual adultery in that BOTH ARE TRANSGRESSIONS OF ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD? Is that not correct, on your terms at least?
Not that the effort of coveting is to be somehow or somewhat identified as adultery, as you seem to suggest (if I am not mistaken in that).
It's not that the one is the other, but there are two distinct prohibitions both of which are considered very serious by God, and transgressions (presumably) similarly punished by a righteous God.

And based on what Jesus said, the act of coveting (a neighbor's wife) can be correctly characterized as "adultery in one's heart." Correct?

If the "effort is equal to the act," does not the effort have to arise to a pretty hearty level? A witty joke? Even if there were a whole bunch of such jokes, and she displayed or at least held some affection for the guy on the basis of such, does that make it coveting? Does he not have to be trying to make her become his wife, not merely that she come to have friendly feelings toward him?

 

[RDKirk]

ITS NOTHING ABOUT YOUR "ATHEISM" - totally off topic to personally attack that way.

What's wrong about it? Your saying it's wrong or "totally wrong" don't make it so. It clearly says "hath committed," does it not?

You've been told several times. See post #27 to see the truth again.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

You've been told several times. See post #27 to see the truth again.

The truth again? What truth you think I need to see again is not indicated; #27 seems to be saying (much) evil comes from the heart.
I don't think I ever denied that.

Perhaps you can easily find in these ten pages (of 20 posts per page) what exactly I was responding to? In other words, I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[AFrazier]

"The effort is equal to the act" in the sense that the effort (coveting) is like unto actual adultery in that BOTH ARE TRANSGRESSIONS OF ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF GOD? Is that not correct, on your terms at least?
Not that the effort of coveting is to be somehow or somewhat identified as adultery, as you seem to suggest (if I am not mistaken in that).
It's not that the one is the other, but there are two distinct prohibitions both of which are considered very serious by God, and transgressions (presumably) similarly punished by a righteous God.

And based on what Jesus said, the act of coveting (a neighbor's wife) can be correctly characterized as "adultery in one's heart." Correct?

If the "effort is equal to the act," does not the effort have to arise to a pretty hearty level? A witty joke? Even if there were a whole bunch of such jokes, and she displayed or at least held some affection for the guy on the basis of such, does that make it coveting? Does he not have to be trying to make her become his wife, not merely that she come to have friendly feelings toward him?

I think you are getting what I'm saying.

Two distinct commandments. Two distinct transgressions. But a single shared principle. Adultery is taking her. Covetousness is trying to take her. But in principle, you are attempting adultery in the act of coveting, and so in your heart you are committing adultery, even if you haven't succeeded.

As for an example, I would suggest that if you have a friend, and the two of you hang out, unwashed, wearing sweats, playing video games all the time. Then the friend gets a girlfriend, and she's beautiful. Suddenly, you start wearing your nicest clothes when she's going to be around. Maybe not church clothes nice, but your best jeans, clean shirt, or whatever you believe is the most flattering on yourself. You start paying more attention to your hygiene when she's going to be around. You try to show off around her, displaying your strengths, talents, intelligence, etc. Subtly, even if you don't realize it, you are coveting her. You are trying to gain her attention. And such an example is very commonplace. It happens all the time.

 

[Danoded]

Simply, if someone looks at a person and lusts after her then he's committed adultery, it's just that. This doesn't even have to mean he wants to take him/her to be their spouse, but having a conscious sexual thought about them is just as good as the act of adultery.

 

[AFrazier]

Simply, if someone looks at a person and lusts after her then he's committed adultery, it's just that. This doesn't even have to mean he wants to take him/her to be their spouse, but having a conscious sexual thought about them is just as good as the act of adultery.

You might want to go back and read the thread. There have been some discussions on this, and on what it is that's actually being said.

 

[Danoded]

You might want to go back and read the thread. There have been some discussions on this, and on what it is that's actually being said.

I've read through quite a bit of it, and I just wanted to leave what I feel, unrelated to the discussions you and others have had.

 

[RDKirk]

.
Actually, a First century married Jewish man could commit all the adultery he wanted, even fornication, incest(1COR.5:1-5) and homosexuality, because Roman Law was in force then, not Moses Law. Roman Law permitted adultery, fornication, incest, homosexuality, prostitution, etc.

No, Roman law was a lot tighter than you presume.

In Roman law, such issues were matters of managing power and wealth. Roman law was actually quite restrictive in many ways. Adultery led to conflicts, and Rome disliked conflicts--in general, adultery was not permitted. That's also why Rome prohibited polygamy, and divorces required the approval of the governor (in Rome itself, divorces required approval of the emperor).

Fornication--nope. Girls were kept closely corralled at home until their marriages were arranged--again, to control the flow of power and wealth.

There were rules surrounding homosexuality, particularly who was allowed to be the "man" in the relationship and who was allowed to be the "woman," and what social rights and penalties were incurred for which role. A soldier who was found to be the "receiver" in a homosexual act would be executed, for instance. Rules also surrounded prostitution in similar fashion.

Not even the emperors and their wives were completely free of these restrictions. Their political power shielded them for a while, but eventually someone either assassinated them or forced them into suicide for breaking the rules.