Liberated Christians
The natural desire for sexual variety has absolutely
nothing to do with "lust" as most assume it to mean. Lust is only wrong if it is
the selfish desire to take something from another. Lust is wrong if it is about
greed and self satisfaction at the expense of another. But there is nothing
whatsoever wrong with mutually desired loving intimacy and enjoying sexual
variety.
In biblical times man could have as many wives and concubines (breeders) as they
wished once the man was age 12 and the women age 13, and adultery was only a sin
for a married women. It was never a sin for a married man as long as the other
women was not married (owned by another man).
Biblically lust was not nearly such a bad word as those that use it against
sexuality seem to think. In the original Greek the word translated "lust" was
used several other times for things NOT considered wrong: Jesus "lusted" to be
with his disciples. The word is the same as that some use to make lust to be a
sin. Did Jesus sin? No, but He lusted. Strong desire for something is not a sin.
Another interpretation of the famous "lust" passage is that Jesus was taking the
law in which the scribes and Pharisees believed that they were so authoritative
on and pressing that law (using adultery as an example) to its ultimate
conclusion, the intent of the heart.
Jesus was not interested in making a new law for us to follow. After all, he
came to fulfill the law in himself through atonement, to bring back to God those
of us who will come. The ONLY commandment he gave was LOVE, love of God with all
that is within us and love of others as we should love ourselves.
Jesus was pressing the law to its ultimate conclusion to show how damningly
impossible a task its proposed adherents set for themselves in their inherent
inability to follow the law. Other NT verses come right out and say that the law
condemns, and that salvation is to be found elsewhere. The law does not save.
Jesus' graphic illustration of sin by saying that the lustful should first cut
out their eyes to enter heaven is not meant literally because the heart is the
real core. Jesus is being sarcastic with the dogged enemies of the truth that
were the Pharisees and Sadducees who sought to keep their status quo intact.
Matthew Adultery Verses Math 5 and 19
Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if you look at the Greek
verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), is the same word used in
the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not covet). In this case,
Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to deprive another of his
property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then reaffirming a quite
traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.
The Greek word here is, of course, epithumia, which also means "covet" and is
the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew,
chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ." It is not coincidence, by the way,
that "neighbor's wife" is included with the other PROPERTY listed in this
text...like neighbors ox etc...
In this case, Jesus was asserting that adultery does not consist primarily of
sexual union of two people, at least one of which is married, but it consists
rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take what belongs to another.
The purpose of the verse is to show no one is free of sin, but the nature of sin
lies in impurity of the heart (taking from another man his wife) rather than the
physical act itself. This is different from consensual nonmonogamy. Its like the
Rabbi said at the swing club, "I don't want to own your wife, just borrow her!"
Now, lets look at how porneia is used here,
In discussing Math 19:9 "porneia": "The exemption for porneia (harlotry) must
refer to the provision in Torah which allowed a man to reject his wife who had
not shown proof of virginity. Such a bride was said to have 'played the harlot'
(ekporneuo in the Septuagint).
Since a women could never have sex outside of her marriage, but a man always
could, this was an important issue. Under the Torah, a married women committed
adultery when she had sex with another man - whether he was married or not.
(violated womens' husbands exclusive right of sex over her regardless which I
refer to as property rights).
It was impossible for a married man to commit adultery, since he would only be
violating his own rights (his wife had no say over husbands having sex with
others, or bringing in more wives or concubines). Jesus however, uplifted womens
rights, that she too now had "a permanent and indissoluble claim on him as her
sexual property" Thus is sexual freedom was to be no greater than try and sum up
another big area, Countryman explains the verse "Let whoever can receive it
receive it" in 19:11-12 ONLY when voluntarily agreed upon by both and NOT as a
new law for Christians. It was for those that where the man had no intrinsic
relation to a family where they could give up their patriarchal positions and
not keep their households in subjection to them. Again, this has nothing to do
with consenting nonmonogamy or loving singles sexuality.
The Church (not the bible) is so obsessed with sexual sin that it often ignores
the context of a passage in order to prop up it's views, right or wrong. Read on
in Math through verse 32, which, in the paragraphing of many Bible versions, is
joined to 27-28. This is a challenge to Jewish men to stop treating their wives
unfairly by demanding divorce for frivolous reasons, a practice that was quite
common at various times in Jewish history.
Return To Section Contents Page
Back To Home Page
