You invited me to start a thread regarding Matt 5:28, so I will.
Let me start by saying that I like the beginning of your article. You do well to bring out the nuance of the Greek language vs the prevailing translation traditions. It starts to stray at the "coveting" portion and misses wildly once you start to talk about the definition of adultery.
First, I think you may have gone too far to insert your understanding of "covet" and suggest that this verse only talks about "when you desire to take those things away from another person". Jesus had a word he could have used if he wanted to communicate "covet". The concept of coveting is covered by the Greek word pleonexia (verb) or pleonektes (noun) (Strong's 4123 and 4124). Given that Jesus did not use this word, it is not appropriate to go so far as to say "well he said this but meant that". No, he said "desire upon" epithumeo (Strong's 1937). Anything beyond than that is eisegesis.
Next, the matter of the definition of adultery. This is where I think you've made significant error by saying "adultery requires a married woman to be involved". In a sense, you are correct; but with that same logic, you would also be correct to say "adultery, necessarily, involves actual physical sexual contact" because that's the actual definition of adultery. If you then say that, you are forced to the conclusion that Jesus' words were nonsense. It is equally impossible to commit "definitional" adultery by desiring a man's wife as it is to commit adultery by desiring any woman. What you are effectively saying here is that "Jesus raised the bar on the definition of adultery, but not as much as most people think he did". If he raised the bar from actual sexual behavior, it seem quite arbitrary to force him to stop short of the simple "if you desire-upon a woman, you adulter her" that is communicated by a more straightforward translation of the verse.
But I would suggest that the entire conversation is moot because Jesus isn't just making a couple new rules: "anger is murder, you don't need to make an oath, and adultery is even looking at a man's wife" but he is setting a principle. What you do in your heart is just as important as what you physically do. You are just as culpable of sinning against God if you have even had evil desires. So, the principle is sufficiently clear when you translate verse 28 hyper-literally: "Moreover I am-saying to{you} that everyone, the viewing [a] woman toward the to-desire-upon same[feminine], already adulters same[feminine] in to{the heart} of{same[masculine]}." (Matt 5:28 GHT) If you objectify a woman, you adulter her. Doesn't matter who she is, doesn't matter who she is married to. God is outside of time, so even if she's not married "yet" she's still someone else's wife, unless she's your own and if she's going to be your wife, well you better start treating her better than as an object to fantasize over.
And this leads me to my primary objection to your article. You miss the entire point of the gospel by hyper-analyzing a "rule" in order to spare "good men of needless guilt". Do you not know that no man is good? (Mark 10:18) Do you not know that guilt is not from God? (John 3:17, Isaiah 1:18, etc.) Do you not know that there is no condemnation in Christ? (Romans 8:1) All have fallen short. (Romans 3:23). Why not teach men to understand who they are in Christ, that the Bible says they have been set free from sin (Romans 6:7) that they obtain this by faith (Eph 2:1-10) and that faith is confidence in the unseen (Hebrews 11:1).
I, personally, take the fact that "sin" in both Hebrew and Greek has a wider semantic range than in English and simply means "failure", "error", or "fault" to its extreme such that if I take a test and don't get a 100 (provided I have been given sufficient information to get that hundred) then I consider myself to have erred, I have sinned. Do I walk around with "needless guilt"? No, because I have been set free from that burden by being immersed into the forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38). I walk by faith, not by sight. I may "see" myself sinning, I may see myself fall short of perfect, but I "forget what is behind and press on toward what is ahead" (Phil 3:13) with confidence, knowing my sins are forgiven and I am righteous according to the Word of God. (And no, I'm not some hyper-gracer who thinks that he can run around sinning and doing whatever he wants. God's law is perfect and I strive to meet it. I just know that I can't meet it on my own, so I rely on the Holy Spirit in me to achieve the victory.)
In spite of the previous passionate paragraphs, I do like the article. I would rewrite the intro a bit to avoid suggesting that its purpose is to spare people guilt. I would rewrite the "lust to coveting" section to stop half way at "desire upon" (which may just be a clearer understanding of what lust is), and I would drop the whole "she has to be married for it to be adultery" section. Then, I would re-write the conclusion as follows (keeping the first paragraph and the last two)
"You cross the line when you switch from noticing/admiring to desiring upon her.
"It’s about the desire to posses a woman who is not yours that Jesus warns about here. It’s perfectly normal and natural to find women attractive; just don’t cross the line and take hold of desire."
With that out of the way, my other issue is the arbitrary nature of translating moicheuo to "sex with another man's wife" in one place but "adultery" in others. (See Mark 8:37 BOS) Even in the same context you swap between the two. (Mark 10:11-12 BOS) Either do or do not use the word.
So proposed simpler translation would be:
“But I tell you, every man looking toward a woman in order to desire upon her, already adulters her in his heart." (Matt 5:28 BOS_mod)
Okay, you wrote a lot so let's take this in bite-size chunks. You said:
This is where I think you've made significant error by saying "adultery requires a married woman to be involved". In a sense, you are correct; but with that same logic, you would also be correct to say "adultery, necessarily, involves actual physical sexual contact" because that's the actual definition of adultery.
So just to clarify, do you agree that μοιχεύω ordinarily requires the involvement of a married woman? (Ignoring contextual factors in this verse for the moment and only talking about the normal use of the word.)
I remain unconvinced by your argument that it ordinarily requires the involvement of a married woman to the exclusion of a case of a married man with an unmarried woman, so I would say that μοιχεύω ordinarily requires the involvement of a married person, but I'm not sure that distinction is material to this discussion.
The distinction is material -- and indeed crucial -- to the discussion because contextually, if μοιχεύω required a married woman to be involved, then the context virtually requires that we translate it "wife" here. (I realize you disagree, but we'll get to that later once we agree on the normal definition of μοιχεύω.)
If you haven't read this article of mine, I suggest you do because it makes a more complete case. To summarize, both the OT and NT words we translate adultery require a married woman to be involved according to the lexicons, biblical usage, and -- not in the article -- but all of the other scholarly writing I've seen on the words through years as well.
Against all of that, what contravening evidence do you have that μοιχεύω could apply to a married man with an unmarried woman?
P.S. I'm pretty sure I'll change it from "covet" to something else, which we can discuss after μοιχεύω.
Berean Patriot (admin)
1 Guest(s)