LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

[AFrazier]

That raises an interesting question: is it perhaps how THE REVELATION OF SCRIPTURE works (for inspiration), IN ACCORD WITH PREVAILING UNDERSTANDINGS?

I.e., SPIRIT MOVES that way, with the influence of culture.

OR, is there only any truth in understanding something in exactly the same way as the First Century did?

To understand how it applies to us, we first have to understand the message in its original historical and cultural context. Trying to interpret Christ's statement according to a 21st century American point of view is going to yield errant understandings. And if you don't understand what he meant, then there's no way to understand how to apply the teaching to your own life.

Edit —

Let me also say that I recognize adultery, per our modern understanding, as a married individual in a monogamous relationship having relations outside of the marriage, whether that person be the man or the woman.

Ergo, I'm not trying to redefine what adultery is to us. I'm making the point that Christ was speaking to a particular audience. And that audience would have understood adultery as an unfaithful woman, or a man taking another man's wife. To them, the marital status of the man involved would have been immaterial. A married man who took an unmarried woman would have simply found himself bound to an additional wife. It would only be adultery if she was already married to someone else.

 

[discipler7]

For adultery to occur in the first century Jewish culture, a man had to be with another man's wife.

.
So, what happened to a First century married Jewish man who had sexual intercourse with a young unmarried woman.?

 

[AFrazier]

.
So, what happened to a First century married Jewish man who had sexual intercourse with a young unmarried woman.?

He got himself a new wife.

Exodus 22:16 — "And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife."

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days."

 

[discipler7]

He got himself a new wife.

.
Are you saying that if a First century married Jewish man enticed and had sexual intercourse with 10 or more young unmarried woman, he could marry all of them.?

 

[discipler7]

He got himself a new wife.

.
What about a First century married Jewish woman who enticed and had sexual intercourse with 1 or more young unmarried man.?

 

[AFrazier]

.
Are you saying that if a First century married Jewish man enticed and had sexual intercourse with 10 or more young unmarried woman, he could marry all of them.?

Yes. That's a historical fact.

 

[AFrazier]

.
What about a First century married Jewish woman who enticed and had sexual intercourse with 1 or more young unmarried man.?

She would be put to death, along with any of the men she had intercourse with who were not her husband. Unless she was outside the city limits, where it would be assumed that she cried out for help and no one could hear her. Then only the men would be put to death. See Deuteronomy 22:22-27.

 

[discipler7]

Yes. That's a historical fact.

.
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.
....... Similarly, a 21st century married US Christian man can commit all the adultery he wants, even fornication and homosexuality, because US Law is in force, not Moses Law.

At JOHN.8, if Jesus Christ had pushed for the enforcement of Moses Law and agreed to the Jewish adulteress being stoned to death, the Pharisees would have reported Him to the Roman rulers and Jesus would have been crucified for instigating a murder.

 

[AFrazier]

.
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.
....... Similarly, a 21st century married US Christian man can commit all the adultery he wants, even fornication and homosexuality, because US Law is in force, not Moses Law.

At JOHN.8, if Jesus Christ had pushed for the enforcement of Moses Law and agreed to the Jewish adulteress being stoned to death, the Pharisees would have reported Him to the Roman rulers and Jesus would have been crucified for instigating a murder.

You underestimate the Jewish adherence to Mosaic law. I think you should read your New Testament a bit more. Jesus is being constantly picked at over points of Mosaic law.

Jesus never argued against the law of Moses with the adulterous woman. That was the whole point of them bringing her to him. They were trying to tempt him and maneuver him into giving instruction contrary to the law of Moses. If he said that they should not put her to death, then he would be guilty of being a presumptuous person who speaks out against those who were in rightful authority. He would be put to death. But neither did he want to preach anything other than mercy.

So he gave them a simple scenario. Whoever among you has no sin, let him cast the first stone. And the mob dispersed on their own. He didn't tell them not to execute justice according to Mosaic law.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

To understand how it applies to us, we first have to understand the message in its original historical and cultural context. Trying to interpret Christ's statement according to a 21st century American point of view is going to yield errant understandings. And if you don't understand what he meant, then there's no way to understand how to apply the teaching to your own life.

Edit —

Let me also say that I recognize adultery, per our modern understanding, as a married individual in a monogamous relationship having relations outside of the marriage, whether that person be the man or the woman.

Ergo, I'm not trying to redefine what adultery is to us. I'm making the point that Christ was speaking to a particular audience. And that audience would have understood adultery as an unfaithful woman, or a man taking another man's wife. To them, the marital status of the man involved would have been immaterial. A married man who took an unmarried woman would have simply found himself bound to an additional wife. It would only be adultery if she was already married to someone else.

I guess there wasn't "bigamy" either for men or women?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

.
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.
....... Similarly, a 21st century married US Christian man can commit all the adultery he wants, even fornication and homosexuality, because US Law is in force, not Moses Law.

At JOHN.8, if Jesus Christ had pushed for the enforcement of Moses Law and agreed to the Jewish adulteress being stoned to death, the Pharisees would have reported Him to the Roman rulers and Jesus would have been crucified for instigating a murder.

Not very safe to express any opinion then I guess.

One "can commit" adultery ACCORDING TO PREVAILING LAW.

IN your view of what it is permissible to do, is there no consideration of what might be called "THE LAW OF GOD"?

 

[dreadnought]

It seems Jesus redefined the word.

And it may or may not have changed much - I think it rather confused a lot of people, led them to CONFUSE MERE THOUGHT WITH ACTUAL ACTION.

It is common for people to try to get around the adultery commandment, but immoral sexual lust is poison to our lives, so instead of trying to get around it, people should abide by it.

 

[dreadnought]

It seems Jesus redefined the word.

And it may or may not have changed much - I think it rather confused a lot of people, led them to CONFUSE MERE THOUGHT WITH ACTUAL ACTION.

Jesus clarified, not redefined, "lust."

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

It is common for people to try to get around the adultery commandment, but immoral sexual lust is poison to our lives, so instead of trying to get around it, people should abide by it.

And what is that Commandment?

It is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," is it not?
THAT IS THE QUESTION !

In case you are interested in what else I have been doing lately:
US Federal Law, The Fetus/Embryo Is A Human Being.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Jesus clarified, not redefined, "lust."

RIGHT. OKAY.

So what is that clarification, if you can see it clearly?

 

[dreadnought]

And what is that Commandment?

It is "Thou shalt not commit adultery," is it not?
THAT IS THE QUESTION !

In case you are interested in what else I have been doing lately:
US Federal Law, The Fetus/Embryo Is A Human Being.

The answer to the question is: Don't look lustfully on people. The problem arises if someone tries to redefine the word "lust."

 

[dreadnought]

RIGHT. OKAY.

So what is that clarification, if you can see it clearly?

If you see it clearly, then clarification is not necessary. Perhaps others don't see it clearly.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The answer to the question is: Don't look lustfully on people. The problem arises if someone tries to redefine the word "lust."

So you would (re)define the word "lust" to mean adultery?

 

[dreadnought]

So you would (re)define the word "lust" to mean adultery?

Lust already has its definition. Adultery isn't lust, it is immoral lust.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Lust means viewing or treating a child of God, another human being, as an object I can use for my own pleasure.