LUST IS ADULTERY Mt. 5:28

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The reason why you're mistaken in this is that Jesus actually uses the word covet, not lust. Lust is an English translation. The Greek word used in this passage is the identical word Paul uses when listing the ten commandments.

Ergo, if you are coveting another man's wife, then you are lusting for her.

Also, you can't commit adultery with someone who isn't married. Nor can you covet a woman who doesn't belong to a man. So you can't lust for (covet) a woman who isn't married. Nor can you commit adultery in your heart if she is not married. Adultery requires someone in the scenario to be married.

Are we sure Jesus actually used the Greek word for "covet"? I don't think so.

Was Greek lacking any words for lust?
Words can have more than one meaning, and presumably the Greek word used in the Commandment against coveting can also mean "lust." Otherwise has there not been a great travesty, a great falsity,in translating?

A couple of English translations say "evil desire" and "impure intention." But they are not the main versions used.

On, "you can't commit adultery with someone who isn't married," is this not blatantly false? In the case where you yourself are married.
"Adultery requires someone in the scenario to be married," shows this to be the case.

It may well be that no one can COVET someone not married to another, but does that not then show that coveting is not to be identified with adultery?

 

[AFrazier]

Are we sure Jesus actually used the Greek word for "covet"? I don't think so.

Was Greek lacking any words for lust?
Words can have more than one meaning, and presumably the Greek word used in the Commandment against coveting can also mean "lust." Otherwise has there not been a great travesty, a great falsity,in translating?

A couple of English translations say "evil desire" and "impure intention." But they are not the main versions used.

On, "you can't commit adultery with someone who isn't married," is this not blatantly false? In the case where you yourself are married.
"Adultery requires someone in the scenario to be married," shows this to be the case.

It may well be that no one can COVET someone not married to another, but does that not then show that coveting is not to be identified with adultery?

Yes, we're sure Jesus used the Greek word for covet. To restate from my original post:

"However, the Greek word ἐπιθυμέω, from which “lust” has been translated, is also used by Paul in Romans 13:9 when listing the Ten Commandments, saying, “Thou shalt not covet (ἐπιθυμέω),” whereas his intent to portray sexual desire or passion employs the word πυρόω in 1 Corinthians 7:9. Better to marry than to burn (πυρόω)."

Jesus is saying "covet".

Speaking specifically in regard to the passage under discussion, it didn't matter if the man was married. They were in a polygamist society. I discussed this already. You're just asking the same questions to things that have been long-since answered. For adultery to occur in the cultural context of Jesus' statement, the woman had to be married. It didn't matter for the man one way or the other. A married man who took another woman just had another wife.

And on your last point, to covet your neighbor's wife is what is being identified with adultery. So to the contrary, that absolutely does show that coveting is to be identified with adultery.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

And on your last point, to covet your neighbor's wife is what is being identified with adultery. So to the contrary, that absolutely does show that coveting is to be identified with adultery.

It in no way justifies that claim to say that those unmarried cannot be the object of such coveting. That is actually already included in the "wife" part.

The last claim in this latest post is that, "no one can COVET someone not married to another"..."Absolutely does show that coveting is to be identified with adultery."

How could it so contribute? How could NOT COVETING, cases where coveting is never present, tell us anything about coveting? As it applies to adultery, or anything else?

* * *
"To covet your neighbor's wife is what is being identified with adultery."
THAT IS THE CLAIM.
To see it's truth we need to identify what "covet" means.
cov·et ˈkəvət/ verb
To yearn to possess or have (something).
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
transitive verb
1: to wish for earnestly (covet an award)
2: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
"The king's brother coveted the throne."

Bible Definition of Covet or Coveting - Patheos
www.patheos.com/.../what-does-covet-mean-bible-definition-of-covet-or-coveting/
May 26, 2014 - The command to not covet is the tenth or last of the Ten Commandments and is one of the hardest commandments to obey and it is impossible to see this being broken in others because it is hidden in the heart where only God can see it.

"EQUIVALENT OF ADULTERY"
If Patheos is correct, then it is all a matter of "in heart."
Which would seem to be in agreement with "adultery in his heart.'

So is the major CLAIM here saying this is a special kind of "adultery"?
Seems it must be saying that WITH THE MERE THOUGHT one has not actually committed the sin of adultery, but one has coveted, committed the sin of coveting.

THEN THE QUESTION REMAINS, the question is, how intense (or whatever features it has) must the desire be, for it to be coveting? For "looking" to be this equivalent of adultery? HOW MUCH DESIRE? If it is truly desire to possess.

This is the old question of whether a glance is sufficient to condemn one to hell, etc.

Or put another way, in accord with the 2nd definition of Webster, HOW "INORDINATE" OR "CULPABLE" MUST THE DESIRE BE TO BE COVETING?
(And hence equivalent to adultery.)

edit: I imagine ancient Jews (and modern ones too) have debated this a lot.

 

[AFrazier]

It in no way justifies that claim to say that those unmarried cannot be the object of such coveting. That is actually already included in the "wife" part.

The last claim in this latest post is that, "no one can COVET someone not married to another"..."Absolutely does show that coveting is to be identified with adultery."

How could it so contribute? How could NOT COVETING, cases where coveting is never present, tell us anything about coveting? As it applies to adultery, or anything else?

* * *
"To covet your neighbor's wife is what is being identified with adultery."
THAT IS THE CLAIM.
To see it's truth we need to identify what "covet" means.
cov·et ˈkəvət/ verb
To yearn to possess or have (something).
MERRIAM-WEBSTER
transitive verb
1: to wish for earnestly (covet an award)
2: to desire (what belongs to another) inordinately or culpably
"The king's brother coveted the throne."

Bible Definition of Covet or Coveting - Patheos
www.patheos.com/.../what-does-covet-mean-bible-definition-of-covet-or-coveting/
May 26, 2014 - The command to not covet is the tenth or last of the Ten Commandments and is one of the hardest commandments to obey and it is impossible to see this being broken in others because it is hidden in the heart where only God can see it.

"EQUIVALENT OF ADULTERY"
If Patheos is correct, then it is all a matter of "in heart."
Which would seem to be in agreement with "adultery in his heart.'

So is the major CLAIM here saying this is a special kind of "adultery"?
Seems it must be saying that WITH THE MERE THOUGHT one has not actually committed the sin of adultery, but one has coveted, committed the sin of coveting.

THEN THE QUESTION REMAINS, the question is, how intense (or whatever features it has) must the desire be, for it to be coveting? For "looking" to be this equivalent of adultery? HOW MUCH DESIRE? If it is truly desire to possess.

This is the old question of whether a glance is sufficient to condemn one to hell, etc.

Or put another way, in accord with the 2nd definition of Webster, HOW "INORDINATE" OR "CULPABLE" MUST THE DESIRE BE TO BE COVETING?
(And hence equivalent to adultery.)

edit: I imagine ancient Jews (and modern ones too) have debated this a lot.

Bro, you clearly don't understand what covetousness is. So I'm going to stop bantering back and forth with you. Live as you please and answer to God. I said my peace.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

it's clear to me that you are trying to argue that lascivious behavior is okay.

you are trying to argue that lascivious behavior is okay.

You are conspicuously attempting to justify lasciviousness

you're wrong in defending or justifying lasciviousness,

You have made statements defending lasciviousness.

IF YOU THINK I'M WRONG, and that FOOLING AROUND WITH ANOTHER MAN'S WIFE WITHOUT ACTUAL COITUS is okay, then you are supporting lasciviousness.

That is a BIG "IF." Casting aspersions, smearing with suggestions that I think that.

Far as I know, far as I can tell, I have never in this thread supported lasciviousness, never defended it or conspicuously attempted to justify it.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS !

 

[Eloy Craft]

It didn't matter for the man one way or the other. A married man who took another woman just had another wife.

That doesn't make sense. I'm misunderstanding something. Only women could commit adultery? Then why wasn't Jesus just talking to women then? Also, coveting isn't sexual lusting but sexual lusting for another woman is a form of coveting. The excuse that lusting for a woman without acting on it wasn't a sin is what Jesus was opposing.

 

[AFrazier]

That doesn't make sense. I'm misunderstanding something. Only women could commit adultery? Then why wasn't Jesus just talking to women then? Also, coveting isn't sexual lusting but sexual lusting for another woman is a form of coveting. The excuse that lusting for a woman without acting on it wasn't a sin is what Jesus was opposing.

Yes, you're misunderstanding something.

First century Jewish culture was a polygamist society. Men had multiple wives, and it was perfectly acceptable. For a man to commit adultery, he had to take another man's wife. There was no such thing as "cheating" for a man. Our modern understanding of adultery, being the act of being with someone who is not your spouse, only applied to women in that era and culture.

As it concerns what Jesus was saying, he specifically uses the word "covet." The word "lust" in this passage is an English translation, and doesn't accurately reflect the original word used. Jesus is saying that while we've been told that we shall not commit adultery, if a man covets another man's wife, then he has committed adultery in his heart.

In short, intent is equal to the act. If you rob a bank, you're guilty of armed robbery, even if you don't get the money. If you try to take another man's wife, you're guilty of adultery, even if you don't succeed in taking her.

That's all that's being said in that passage.

 

[AFrazier]

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS.






That is a BIG "IF." Casting aspersions, smearing with suggestions that I think that.

Far as I know, far as I can tell, I have never in this thread supported lasciviousness, never defended it or conspicuously attempted to justify it.

THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS !

Just stop talking to me. I told you I'm done. Go play devil's advocate with someone else.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Yes, you're misunderstanding something.

First century Jewish culture was a polygamist society. Men had multiple wives, and it was perfectly acceptable. For a man to commit adultery, he had to take another man's wife. There was no such thing as "cheating" for a man. Our modern understanding of adultery, being the act of being with someone who is not your spouse, only applied to women in that era and culture.

As it concerns what Jesus was saying, he specifically uses the word "covet." The word "lust" in this passage is an English translation, and doesn't accurately reflect the original word used. Jesus is saying that while we've been told that we shall not commit adultery, if a man covets another man's wife, then he has committed adultery in his heart.

In short, intent is equal to the act. If you rob a bank, you're guilty of armed robbery, even if you don't get the money. If you try to take another man's wife, you're guilty of adultery, even if you don't succeed in taking her.

That's all that's being said in that passage.

In that case we can lust for another woman and it's ok.

 

[Eloy Craft]

First century Jewish culture was a polygamist society. Men had multiple wives

Jesus taught marriage was between one man and one woman. Divorce wasn't an option. So far your reasoning is stretching things

 

[Eloy Craft]

deleted

 

[Eloy Craft]

If you try to take another man's wife, you're guilty of adultery, even if you don't succeed in taking her.

Jesus was talking about a sin that wasn't an act. What was that sin?

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Jesus was talking about a sin that wasn't an act. What was that sin?

Presumably it was the lust that is coveting and amounts to adultery.

Yet then it would have to be an act if it is coveting, is trying to take (as one's wife, presumably), the wife of another.

THAT IS, IF coveting (that "amounts to adultery," is that a correct way to put it?), if coveting "LUST" is indeed actually action, actions of attempting to take away from another man his wife.

So EITHER IT IS A SIN THAT ISN'T AN ACT, OR IT IS COVETING that has some kind of relation to adultery and is indeed an act.

 

[AFrazier]

In that case we can lust for another woman and it's ok.

Didn't say that.

2 Corinthians 10:5 — "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

Philippians 4:8 — "Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things."

As I said in my original post, which I'm assuming you missed, it is not my intent to condone dwelling on carnality. We should bring our thoughts into obedience to Christ and think on things that are praiseworthy, just, and virtuous.

However, that truth notwithstanding, that's not what Christ was talking about. He is making it known that the attempt is equal to the act. If you try to take another man's wife, then you've committed adultery in your heart.

 

[AFrazier]

Jesus taught marriage was between one man and one woman. Divorce wasn't an option. So far your reasoning is stretching things

My reasoning isn't stretched. Your understanding is narrow. And I mean that as a statement of practical fact, not as an insult. Polygamy was part of their culture. It wasn't a thing that was merely accepted or tolerated. It was the norm. There is biblical support for it going all the way back to Jacob. And there is ample historical substantiation that it was the way of things in the first century AD.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

IT HAS BEEN SAID,
the attempt is equal to the act. If you try to take another man's wife, then you've committed adultery in your heart.

Is the trying an act itself?

(Or just some imagining?)

 

[AFrazier]

Jesus was talking about a sin that wasn't an act. What was that sin?

No, Jesus was talking about coveting your neighbor's wife.

As Paul says in Romans 13:8-10, any commandment we have is fulfilled by "love your neighbor as yourself." Because loves works no ill to your neighbor. Therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.

Thus, if "you shall not covet" is fulfilled by "love your neighbor as yourself," then coveting has an outward manifestation that can be quantified. It's more than just "wanting" something. It has to be the kind of "want" that causes your neighbor ill. If lusting/coveting is all in your head, then your neighbor doesn't even know it's going on.

Therefore, coveting that which belongs to your neighbor is a "want" that goes to the extreme of trying to possess that which belongs to your neighbor.

Ergo, you shall not commit adultery. But if you covet your neighbor's wife, you are guilty of adultery for making the attempt.

 

[AFrazier]

Presumably it was the lust that is coveting and amounts to adultery.

Yet then it would have to be an act if it is coveting, is trying to take (as one's wife, presumably), the wife of another.

THAT IS, IF coveting (that "amounts to adultery," is that a correct way to put it?), if coveting "LUST" is indeed actually action, actions of attempting to take away from another man his wife.

So EITHER IT IS A SIN THAT ISN'T AN ACT, OR IT IS COVETING that has some kind of relation to adultery and is indeed an act.

Your sentences are often choppy and difficult to fully understand. But if I'm understanding you correctly, I can agree with what you've written here.

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

Your sentences are often choppy and difficult to fully understand. But if I'm understanding you correctly, I can agree with what you've written here.

Agreeing with what I have written there I think simply means agreeing there are 2 alternative understandings.

WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS CORRECT?

Is there actual action in trying to take another's wife?

 

[AFrazier]

IT HAS BEEN SAID,
the attempt is equal to the act. If you try to take another man's wife, then you've committed adultery in your heart.

Is the trying an act itself?

(Or just some imagining?)

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. This truth goes all the way back to Adam and Eve and Cain and Abel. Eve didn't sin until she actually took the fruit, though she desired it before her hand laid hold on it. Cain didn't sin until he slew his brother, though he desired it before he committed the act. God told Cain that his desire would be for sin, but that he had to master it. He could do rightly and be accepted, or he could do wrongly and sin waited at the door.

Thoughts are not sin. Sin lies in what we do.