• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

One Woman Man

Angel3, A married man having lustful thoughts or desires for a woman other than his existing wife does not constitute adultery because:
1. Adultery must be the same in OT and NT scriptures to be consistent and your description does not meet OT standards.
2. Having thoughts or desires does not constitute the deed, there must also be intent and effort to be considered adultery in the heart, Jimmy Carter was wrong!
3. While physical (sexual) interest is not the wisest foundation for marriage, it certainly is a functional part of marriage relationships. Designed and blessed by God in both major divisions of the Bible, sexual interest is one of the means God has designed to make marriage work. Who are we to mess with His design. Such restriction is a carry over from ancient catholic doctrine.
 
Angel 3 said:
Maybe it would be okay in God's eyes for a single male and female to have sexual desires for each other before they marry, but when it comes to a married guy having "sexual" desires for any woman who is not his wife, then that can be adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:28).
Click to expand...

An understanding of the Greek helped me out a lot with this passage. It seems that just as we have different words for rain -- misting, drizzle, downpour, etc., OT Hebrew used 4 words in describing women, and NT Greek used 3.

The Hebrew words mean a) woman who has never married, b) married woman, c) woman who is no longer married due to divorce, and d) woman who is no longer married due to death. They were translated into English as a) Virgin, b) don't remember, c) Divorced woman, and d) Widow.

Greek was a wee bit different. It just used 3 for a) Never married, b) Currently married, and c) No longer married (whether dur to divorce OR death). These were translated as a) Virgin, b)Woman, and c) Widow.

With this in mind, what Jesus said makes much more sense. If you look at a Woman, i.e. a married woman, with lust, i.e. strong desire to possess, THAT is adultery of the heart. THAT female is not morally available, and craving her is craving that which is immoral.

However, looking at a morally available woman, i.e. a virgin or a widow, with desire, is a craving for what is imminently moral. To become a husband. (Assuming that your intent isn't a temporary liaison.)

Personally, I found this understanding very freeing, and the release of a LOAD of guilt.
 
CecilW said:
Personally, I found this understanding very freeing, and the release of a LOAD of guilt.
Click to expand...
myself also
i was finally able to look at myself in the mirror w/out shame when i learned this
 
Not to mention, it constitutes a tacit acknowledgment of PM on Jesus' part. He didn't restrict it further by saying, "Unless you're already married, in which case don't look at ANY female with lust." WHich He was quite capable of doing.
 
John Whitten said:
Angel3, A married man having lustful thoughts or desires for a woman other than his existing wife does not constitute adultery because:
1. Adultery must be the same in OT and NT scriptures to be consistent and your description does not meet OT standards.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure. Matthew 5:28 mentions "looking at a woman lustfully" which does not constitute a physical act. Jesus made modifications to several things and I believe this area is one of them. The OT talks about the physical act only, but what Jesus adds to that is a mental act which was not part of the OT to my understanding.



John Whitten said:
2. Having thoughts or desires does not constitute the deed, there must also be intent and effort to be considered adultery in the heart, Jimmy Carter was wrong!
Click to expand...

Matthew 5:28 mentions looking with lustful desires only. Trying to act on it by making advances is not specified.

John Whitten said:
3. While physical (sexual) interest is not the wisest foundation for marriage, it certainly is a functional part of marriage relationships. Designed and blessed by God in both major divisions of the Bible, sexual interest is one of the means God has designed to make marriage work. Who are we to mess with His design. Such restriction is a carry over from ancient catholic doctrine.
Click to expand...

I do believe that in part, which is why I think someone who is "single" can do that, but once they're married, that changes the ball game. I'm a guy and I can admit right now, I"ve "sexually" desired women who I KNOW I would NOT marry because they weren't marriage material. I mean, unless you can specify that you should only sexually desire girls who you plan to marry but that's not how lust has worked according to my experience nor is that a specification in the Bible to my understanding.
 
CecilW said:
Angel 3 said:
Maybe it would be okay in God's eyes for a single male and female to have sexual desires for each other before they marry, but when it comes to a married guy having "sexual" desires for any woman who is not his wife, then that can be adultery of the heart (Matthew 5:28).
Click to expand...

An understanding of the Greek helped me out a lot with this passage. It seems that just as we have different words for rain -- misting, drizzle, downpour, etc., OT Hebrew used 4 words in describing women, and NT Greek used 3.

The Hebrew words mean a) woman who has never married, b) married woman, c) woman who is no longer married due to divorce, and d) woman who is no longer married due to death. They were translated into English as a) Virgin, b) don't remember, c) Divorced woman, and d) Widow.

Greek was a wee bit different. It just used 3 for a) Never married, b) Currently married, and c) No longer married (whether dur to divorce OR death). These were translated as a) Virgin, b)Woman, and c) Widow.

With this in mind, what Jesus said makes much more sense. If you look at a Woman, i.e. a married woman, with lust, i.e. strong desire to possess, THAT is adultery of the heart. THAT female is not morally available, and craving her is craving that which is immoral.

However, looking at a morally available woman, i.e. a virgin or a widow, with desire, is a craving for what is imminently moral. To become a husband. (Assuming that your intent isn't a temporary liaison.)

Personally, I found this understanding very freeing, and the release of a LOAD of guilt.
Click to expand...

I'll admit I had a wrong understanding there and I didn't realize that until you referenced the Greek word for "woman". I just looked at the Greek word for "woman" in Matthew 5:28, and I did see that it can mean "wife". Thanks for that insight and freeing me from unnecessary guilt! : )
 
Sorry for not being more specific. What I was referring to is the OT description of adultery, having sexual relations with a woman currently married to another man. No where in the OT is sexual relations with an unmarried woman called adultery. If a man had sexual relations with a single woman with no intention of marriage, that could be considered fornication or harlotry, but not adultery because she was not married. There is never a reference to the marital status of the man. Because of God's consistency, He doesn't change the rules in the middle of the game. Adultery must be the same in both Testaments. Therefore we are expected to understand that Jesus was talking about lusting after a married woman. It does not change the emphasis of heart action, but it does narrow the scope and relieve us of unnecessary guilt. I like the way Cecil said. I hopes this clarifies my intent. Thanks for the response.
 
Don't you just love it, when someone posts better information while you are writing yours? :-D

Thanks guys!
 
John Whitten said:
Sorry for not being more specific. What I was referring to is the OT description of adultery, having sexual relations with a woman currently married to another man. No where in the OT is sexual relations with an unmarried woman called adultery. If a man had sexual relations with a single woman with no intention of marriage, that could be considered fornication or harlotry, but not adultery because she was not married. There is never a reference to the marital status of the man. Because of God's consistency, He doesn't change the rules in the middle of the game. Adultery must be the same in both Testaments. Therefore we are expected to understand that Jesus was talking about lusting after a married woman. It does not change the emphasis of heart action, but it does narrow the scope and relieve us of unnecessary guilt. I like the way Cecil said. I hopes this clarifies my intent. Thanks for the response.
Click to expand...

Both of your points really helped here, thanks.
 
I want to agree with Cecil that if a woman comes into our lives or my life it would be a gift from God. I am talking to a potential second wife and we basically found each other and when my wife and I met her we all three had the same feeling and that is God has brought us into each others lives for a reason. If a marriage does not happen maybe a friendship of a life time. We will continue to pray and if this is what God wants for me then it will be. I ask a gentleman at the retreat why he did not wear his wedding ring and he stated he was available, considering he and his wife were looking for a second. This may offended some but I admired it and felt that we have to put ourselves in a position to allow God to bring good things into our lives. Not wearing his ring allows a future wife to approach him and maybe God uses this as a way to work in his life and allow him to receive his blessing from God. If God leads a person to have only one wife then that is between God and them. For me he has laid it on my heart to find another wife and I feel I will soon receive my blessing from him. God works different in everyone's life.

Good Luck,

We will pray God leads you!

James Hunt
 
I'm not so sure. Matthew 5:28 mentions "looking at a woman lustfully" which does not constitute a physical act. Jesus made modifications to several things and I believe this area is one of them. The OT talks about the physical act only, but what Jesus adds to that is a mental act which was not part of the OT to my understanding.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Not at all. What He always did was teach what was Written (by Him, of course) "with Authority".

Take a look at the "ten commandments" in Exodus 20:17, and note carefully what the word "covet" means: (חָמַד chamad, Strong's H2530) "to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in". Most men can understand what He was talking about when He taught about "lusting in our heart."

The clear implication of "covet" is that it involves a state of mind which can lead ultimately to being willing to steal, or take by force. It is the type of "thought" which we were later warned to "take captive". In fact, the Hebrew midrash teaches that it is THIS commandment which really addresses the broader prohibition of theft (and that the 'eighth' commandment really refers to stealing of children, or kidnapping, interestingly.)
 
Mark C said:
I'm not so sure. Matthew 5:28 mentions "looking at a woman lustfully" which does not constitute a physical act. Jesus made modifications to several things and I believe this area is one of them. The OT talks about the physical act only, but what Jesus adds to that is a mental act which was not part of the OT to my understanding.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)

Not at all. What He always did was teach what was Written (by Him, of course) "with Authority".

Take a look at the "ten commandments" in Exodus 20:17, and note carefully what the word "covet" means: (חָמַד chamad, Strong's H2530) "to desire, covet, take pleasure in, delight in". Most men can understand what He was talking about when He taught about "lusting in our heart."

The clear implication of "covet" is that it involves a state of mind which can lead ultimately to being willing to steal, or take by force. It is the type of "thought" which we were later warned to "take captive". In fact, the Hebrew midrash teaches that it is THIS commandment which really addresses the broader prohibition of theft (and that the 'eighth' commandment really refers to stealing of children, or kidnapping, interestingly.)
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying. I did not look at coveting as also being adultery because I always considered adultery to be a physical act. It was not until the NT that probably many looked at it as also applying to the heart or at least that's how I would've understood it at that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top