LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

[Douglas Hendrickson]

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 doesn't get this. (see below)
Probably hasn't read closely what you've said .

I sort of raised this question already:
can there not be VARIETIES OF "ATTENTION," and I would suggest to the ultimate of attention, that one could desire and even with all ones resources strive for, that would NOT be coveting because there would NEVER be any desire to have the woman for a wife?

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.

I think this arises from elements of the present day that differ from what ancient "adultery" was.
I.e. probably most adultery today has nothing to do with prohibited coveting, i.e. wanting to be married to the woman, have her as wife.

 

[Danoded]

Danoded doesn't get this. (see below)
Probably hasn't read closely what you've said .

I sort of raised this question already:
can there not be VARIETIES OF "ATTENTION," and I would suggest to the ultimate of attention, that one could desire and even with all ones resources strive for, that would NOT be coveting because there would NEVER be any desire to have the woman for a wife?


I think this arises from elements of the present day that differ from what ancient "adultery" was.
I.e. probably most adultery today has nothing to do with prohibited coveting, i.e. wanting to be married to the woman, have her as wife.

So are you trying to say that adultery is only when someone wants to take a woman to be his wife when he's already married? Only that?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

So are you trying to say that adultery is only when someone wants to take a woman to be his wife when he's already married? Only that?

That may be what AFrazier is trying to say?
But not only, in that "in the normal course of events," the coveting he is pointing to may actually result in actual adultery.

Seems to me adultery is "ONLY" when there is illicit sexual intercourse (coitus), between a man and a woman one of which (at least) is married to someone else. This is our modern understanding where a man may be adulterous as well as a woman.
And there is no actual adultery in the case of adultery in heart which is coveting and prohibited because it is coveting, not because it is adultery.

The coveting interpretation of "adultery in heart" comes from the word used for "lust" in Matthew 5:28, that it is the one in the last of the Ten Commandments as repeated by Saint Paul.
Thanks AFrazier!

 

[AFrazier]

So are you trying to say that adultery is only when someone wants to take a woman to be his wife when he's already married? Only that?

Douglas Hendrickson is more or less understanding me correctly.

Adultery, in the cultural context of Jesus' statement, is the crime of taking a woman that belongs to another man. And by "take," I do mean lie with, even in the case of marrying a woman who belongs to another, as you would inevitably lie with a woman bound to you in that way.

To "lust" after her is to covet her (per the Greek word actually used in the statement). Consistent with the context of adultery, you can't covet something unless it already belongs to another. So to covet your neighbor's wife is to commit adultery in your heart. And to covet is to seek to obtain.

This whole passage is simply saying that while we've heard it said that we shall not commit adultery, if we covet our neighbor's wife, in our hearts we have committed adultery already. The intent is equal to the act.

This is not saying that if a single girl in a bikini stirs your loins you've committed adultery in your heart. It's not even saying that if a married woman in a bikini stirs your loins you've committed adultery in your heart. It's saying that if you covet your neighbor's wife (try to acquire her), then you've committed adultery by intent.

However, as I've stated elsewhere, let me reiterate that I am not advocating carnality. We should still think on things that are of good report, pure, holy, etc.

 

[Danoded]

[Redacted]

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This whole passage is simply saying that while we've heard it said that we shall not commit adultery, if we covet our neighbor's wife, in our hearts we have committed adultery already. The intent is equal to the act.

A little clarification, if you don't mind.

"The intent is equal to the act." What act is that?

Presumably it is the act of adultery.
There are acts involved, acts of coveting the neighbor's wife. These real actions are directed toward obtaining the (already married) woman to be one's wife. These acts are NOT adultery - they are coveting.
Could they included coitus? In our present understandings if they include coitus it is no longer coveting but adultery. Or both?

The intent is presumably an intent to commit adultery, yet if it is the intent involved in coveting, the intent writ large or manifest in coveting actions, it is itself coveting and the transgression pointed to by Jesus. Is it not? The actual action that is an actual transgression.

I guess I am asking what kind of "equality" is present?
Some actions are NOT the same as others, surely.

My answer to my own question here is, equal culpability, in that both are transgressions of the Commandments of God. No other equality?

 

[Tetra]

Douglas Hendrickson is more or less understanding me correctly.

Adultery, in the cultural context of Jesus' statement, is the crime of taking a woman that belongs to another man. And by "take," I do mean lie with, even in the case of marrying a woman who belongs to another, as you would inevitably lie with a woman bound to you in that way.

To "lust" after her is to covet her (per the Greek word actually used in the statement). Consistent with the context of adultery, you can't covet something unless it already belongs to another. So to covet your neighbor's wife is to commit adultery in your heart. And to covet is to seek to obtain.

This whole passage is simply saying that while we've heard it said that we shall not commit adultery, if we covet our neighbor's wife, in our hearts we have committed adultery already. The intent is equal to the act.

This is not saying that if a single girl in a bikini stirs your loins you've committed adultery in your heart. It's not even saying that if a married woman in a bikini stirs your loins you've committed adultery in your heart. It's saying that if you covet your neighbor's wife (try to acquire her), then you've committed adultery by intent.

However, as I've stated elsewhere, let me reiterate that I am not advocating carnality. We should still think on things that are of good report, pure, holy, etc.

This is correct... something I have often wondered. In my experience in Christendom (about 25 years now considering I grew up in the church plus a year in Bible college), Christians consistently use the term "lust" (or "lustfully") in Matthew 5:28 to mean sexual arousal? This is clearly in error both in the original greek, and even in the context of the verse. Why can't Christians admit it's conjecture?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

This is correct... something I have often wondered. In my experience in Christendom (about 25 years now considering I grew up in the church plus a year in Bible college), Christians consistently use the term "lust" (or "lustfully") in Matthew 5:28 to mean sexual arousal? This is clearly in error both in the original greek, and even in the context of the verse. Why can't Christians admit it's conjecture?

What precisely is conjecture?

There is ERROR in the Bible verse?
In somebody's definition of "lust"?

 

[Tetra]

What precisely is conjecture?

There is ERROR in the Bible verse?
In somebody's definition of "lust"?

"the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof."

- the definition of conjecture

I don't wish to hijack the OP, so made a thread on Christian conjecture here:
Christian Conjecture... Just Admit You Don't Know

I'm not saying the Bible verse is in error, I'm saying the interpretation maybe in error.

 

[AFrazier]

A little clarification, if you don't mind.

"The intent is equal to the act." What act is that?

The act of trying to acquire the woman as your own, whether for permanent or spontaneous use. If she belongs to him, and you attempt to make her belong to you, even for just an evening, then the attempt to do so is equal to actually accomplishing it.

 

[AFrazier]

This is correct... something I have often wondered. In my experience in Christendom (about 25 years now considering I grew up in the church plus a year in Bible college), Christians consistently use the term "lust" (or "lustfully") in Matthew 5:28 to mean sexual arousal? This is clearly in error both in the original greek, and even in the context of the verse. Why can't Christians admit it's conjecture?

Because most Christians, especially on the forums, are know-it-alls. People are more interested in being right than in being correct. Wisdom is a difficult lesson to learn. It starts with humility and contrition, which is sorely lacking in Christians today.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

- the definition of conjecture

I don't wish to hijack the OP, so made a thread on Christian conjecture here:
Christian Conjecture... Just Admit You Don't Know

I'm not saying the Bible verse is in error, I'm saying the interpretation maybe in error.

I was wondering what you were saying was conjecture, NOT what the definition of conjecture is.

You say "Christians can't admit it's conjecture." What is "it"? What precisely are you referring to?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The act of trying to acquire the woman as your own, whether for permanent or spontaneous use. If she belongs to him, and you attempt to make her belong to you, even for just an evening, then the attempt to do so is equal to actually accomplishing it.

Mind if I ask for a definition of "belongs to" in "belongs to you, even for just an evening"?

Coitus would be the answer, I would think, in the case when it is "just for the evening."
IF he has, (or ONLY tries to have), sexual intercourse, then the coveting has occurred. If not, not.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Because most Christians, especially on the forums, are know-it-alls. People are more interested in being right than in being correct. Wisdom is a difficult lesson to learn. It starts with humility and contrition, which is sorely lacking in Christians today.

I don't wish to appear _____, what is the word?

Anyway, if "wisdom is a difficult lesson to learn," what part of it says "being right" is different than "being correct"?

Surely you are not here talking about the political spectrum?

 

[Tetra]

I was wondering what you were saying was conjecture, NOT what the definition of conjecture is.

You say "Christians can't admit it's conjecture." What is "it"? What precisely are you referring to?

I thought I made it clear in post #207... specifically regarding the definition of lust, and using it "to mean sexual arousal".

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

I thought I made it clear in post #207... specifically regarding the definition of lust, and using it "to mean sexual arousal".

You said it is clearly wrong in the original Greek, so I thought it was probably the Bible you were saying was conjecture.

It's not that the original Greek is wrong, but the interpretation and translation is wrong. Right?

 

[Tetra]

You said it is clearly wrong in the original Greek, so I thought it was probably the Bible you were saying was conjecture.

It's not that the original Greek is wrong, but the interpretation and translation is wrong. Right?

I think you misunderstood me, here is my post, and quote:

Christians consistently use the term "lust" (or "lustfully") in Matthew 5:28 to mean sexual arousal? This is clearly in error both in the original greek, and even in the context of the verse

.

There is not error in the Greek, I'm saying translating the Greek to make lust mean sexual arousal is an error (which it is).

 

[AFrazier]

Mind if I ask for a definition of "belongs to" in "belongs to you, even for just an evening"?

Coitus would be the answer, I would think, in the case when it is "just for the evening."
IF he has, (or ONLY tries to have), sexual intercourse, then the coveting has occurred. If not, not.

"Belongs to," in a modern perspective, can mean girlfriend, boyfriend, wife, or husband. In principle, it is every bit as wrong to try to steal another guy's girlfriend as it is to try to steal his wife. The bottom line ... she's his, and you are coveting what is someone else's.

"Just for the evening" is, in fact, referring to a one night stand or affair.

 

[AFrazier]

I don't wish to appear _____, what is the word?

Anyway, if "wisdom is a difficult lesson to learn," what part of it says "being right" is different than "being correct"?

Surely you are not here talking about the political spectrum?

No, I'm not talking about politics. However, as they say, don't talk religion or politics. The reason is that everyone is right, but only half of them are correct, if that.

Everyone thinks their interpretation is right. Everyone thinks their understanding of things is right. But believing you are right does not mean you are correct, and when presented with evidence contrary to your point of view, if you are unable to change your opinion, then you fall into the category of being more interested in being right than in being correct.

You can see this truth in every biblical discussion from doctrines of once saved always saved, faith versus works, law versus grace, etc. You can see it in discussions on biblical history, such as the death of Herod the Great, a Wednesday versus Friday crucifixion, etc. It's everywhere. Everyone is right. No one ever wants to be wrong. And the threads go on for pages because a simple statement of fact can't just be accepted in lieu of their own opinion.

Wisdom is to have the humility to know you may not always be correct. Wisdom is to listen, to consider, to understand ... and then make a decision, and, as needed, a change in your point of view.

This is a problem almost all of us suffer from. I'm as guilty as anyone else. But my eyes were opened many years ago to the vast world of understanding that comes with the epiphany of humility. I've changed my opinion on more things than I can remember at this point.

Unfortunately, most don't come to that point. Instead, they argue. They would rather be right than be correct.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Everyone thinks their interpretation is right. Everyone thinks their understanding of things is right. But believing you are right does not mean you are correct, and when presented with evidence contrary to your point of view, if you are unable to change your opinion, then you fall into the category of being more interested in being right than in being correct.

So that's a category, is it?

If I say, "Everyone thinks their interpretation is correct. Everyone thinks their understanding of things is correct," is that not just as true as your statement, "Everyone thinks their interpretation is right. Everyone thinks their understanding of things is right."? And means the same thing.
That is, "right" and "correct" mean exactly the same thing.

SO, "believing you are right does not mean you are correct," that is true. But it is equally true that, "believing you are correct does not mean you are right." They mean the same thing.
If you are right, that means you are correct.
If you are correct, that means you are right.
NO DIFFERENCE.