You can only lust when married?

[Afterthought]

Hi all. I just have a quick question concerning Matthew 5:27-28.

"Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

Someone told me this verse only applies to those who are married because it is about adultery. I suppose I could go to other verses to show that lusting in general is wrong, but I would like to vindicate this passage from the evasion. Any thoughts how, especially from those who know Greek? If the verse does indeed speak only of married people, what is the chain of reasoning that shows it applies to others too?


My own thoughts so far. It is stated in an if-then sort of way. If you lust, then you commit adultery in the heart. Since unmarried people can lust, then they can also commit adultery in the heart. The Pharisees tried to distort this passage in a similar way by saying one could only break the Seventh Commandment by actually committing adultery, but this shows that the Seventh Commandment has a broader application. Jesus is showing that those who lust also break the Seventh Commandment, not just those who are married and commit adultery.

 

[Michael]

I would start with the 7th Commandment, which Christ is expounding upon. You can find a wealth of support in the scripture proofs of the Westminster Larger Catechism, questions 137-139.

 

[Afterthought]

So I suppose you would suggest I show the strangeness involved in treating the Seventh Commandment as involving only the married? (and if so, suggestions how to do this?)

 

[Pilgrim]

So I suppose you would suggest I show the strangeness involved in treating the Seventh Commandment as involving only the married? (and if so, suggestions how to do this?)

This "strangeness" is absurd on the face of it. From the way you describe it, this argument is similar to those who gainsay the biblical teaching on women elders, homosexuality and sexual ethics in general. Lust for long enough, and it's often going to result in more than just "heart" adultery or fornication.

 

[Reformation Monk]

I believe the meaning in the Greek is more along the line of - to strongly desire, to covet, to long for etc...

The English translation "Lust" can and does have slightly different meanings in the New Testament that all point to a strong desire, whether sexual or not.

So I believe the overall meaning that can be applied across the board is that we shouldn't strong desire something that is not ours.

So in the case of a single person, they should not desire to have a woman in their heart but rather have respect for her as a creature of God. i.e., treat her as a sister, mother or daughter.

If a single person lust's after another person, whether it be the opposite sex or the same sex, then they are coveting and also fornicating in their heart. If a married person does the same then they are coveting and adulterating.

That's kind of how I've always seen it.

 

[Afterthought]

This "strangeness" is absurd on the face of it. From the way you describe it, this argument is similar to those who gainsay the biblical teaching on women elders, homosexuality and sexual ethics in general. Lust for long enough, and it's often going to result in more than just "heart" adultery or fornication.

Yeah, I was going to put "absurdity," but I softened it at the last minute. Indeed, the consequences of the method of that interpretation is worrisome, but I'll have to think of a way of showing it unless someone here has a suggestion how.

That's kind of how I've always seen it.

That was very helpful, and I bet that will carry much weight provided I show the other bible verses that speak of lust in general being wrong.


Any other suggestions, comments, opinions from people?

 

[torstar]

Marriage is no guarantee that one has a godly manner of dealing with these areas.

 

[Skyler]

Umm.

Unmarried people can commit adultery, too...

 

[athanatos]

Unmarried people can commit adultery, too...

Only if the other person is married. The act of adultery is marriage-breaking; whereas no married party is fornication.

 

[Skyler]

Only if the other person is married.

Right.

 

[Michael]

The act of adultery is marriage-breaking; whereas no married party is fornication.

Are you suggesting that the 7th Commandment can only be broken when marriage is involved? Just seeking clarification...

 

[SRoper]

The seventh commandment is broader than adultery--see WLC 138,139.

Having said that, there is a sense in which some forms of sexual desire between unmarried persons are not properly called lust. If one unmarried person intends to marry another, there is going to be some sort of sexual desire between the two--otherwise the marriage isn't likely to happen!

 

[he beholds]

Unmarried people can commit adultery, too...

Only if the other person is married. The act of adultery is marriage-breaking; whereas no married party is fornication.

I think two unmarried people could commit adultery (or one party of it could by lusting) by being unfaithful to their future spouse. I've never thought of adultery as being limited to an already-married person.

 

[moral necessity]

In regard to the OP for vindicating the passage, lust is no more limited to married people than hatred is limited to criminals.

All the passage is saying is that both have the same heart, and so both are condemned, with or without it leading to a behavioral action. Someone who lusts has the same heart as someone who commits adultery, and so both are guilty even though the one did not come to fruition as an outward behavior. Someone who hates has the same heart as someone who commits murder, and so both are guilty, even though the one did not bear itself out in the act of murder. The behavioral action is minor detail, the fruit. The sap that exists underneath is where the sin is, and that is what Christ is hitting upon.

That's how I tend to see it...

Blessings!

 

[Afterthought]

I totally agree that the 7th commandment applies beyond adultery in the strict sense, and I also agree that there is some sort of attraction that is not lust, though I fear defining the boundary because the tendency for humans concerning sexual sins is to go as close as possible without sinning, instead of fleeing from it.

That's how I tend to see it...

Thanks, that helps quite a bit. I was trying to find a way to use that, but I didn't get the connection of making the person a "criminal."


Thanks all again! If there's anything more to say, comment on, help with, I'm willing to hear it!

 

[BJClark]

even though the one did not come to fruition as an outward behavior.

I think that would depend on the outward behavior.

Say a person is watching por* or purchasing those type videos or downloading them offline, and print media (ie: magazines) though they may not have 'committed' the physical sexual act with another person, the lust has come to fruition, through the act of the purchase and viewing.

And it's someone not their spouse, as God has not given them that person as their spouse.

 

[moral necessity]

"

That's how I tend to see it...

Thanks, that helps quite a bit. I was trying to find a way to use that, but I didn't get the connection of making the person a "criminal."QUOTE]"

Well, what I meant was, according to your friend, only a married person could lust. Jesus also equated hatred with murder, in the same sermon. But, would your friend make the same conclusion and say that only a criminal can hate? So, if hatred is not limited to criminals, then lust is not limited to married people either.

I guess it made sense to me...

Blessings!

---------- Post added at 11:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:31 PM ----------

even though the one did not come to fruition as an outward behavior.

I think that would depend on the outward behavior.

Say a person is watching por* or purchasing those type videos or downloading them offline, and print media (ie: magazines) though they may not have 'committed' the physical sexual act with another person, the lust has come to fruition, through the act of the purchase and viewing.

And it's someone not their spouse, as God has not given them that person as their spouse.

Agreed...lust can come to fruition in other forms of outward behavior. I gather that was what you were pointing out.

Blessings!

 

[Afterthought]

Well, what I meant was, according to your friend, only a married person could lust. Jesus also equated hatred with murder, in the same sermon. But, would your friend make the same conclusion and say that only a criminal can hate? So, if hatred is not limited to criminals, then lust is not limited to married people either.

Oh I'm sorry. That's precisely what I understood you to mean. I just worded my post quite poorly.

 

[SRoper]

I think two unmarried people could commit adultery (or one party of it could by lusting) by being unfaithful to their future spouse. I've never thought of adultery as being limited to an already-married person.

I've heard this idea before, but I don't find it in Scripture. It seems to run into all sorts of difficulty when you consider that many will legitimately marry more than once. Which future spouse were you being unfaithful to? Were you unfaithful to your second spouse when you were with the first? It seems much more straightforward to set the bounds of the requirements of fidelity with the vow to forsake all others on one side and the end of marriage with the death of one of the partners on the other (in addition, betrothal would contain an implicit vow).