• 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.

Polygyny, Matt. 5:28, and Attraction

NBTX11 said:
However, this verse, I believe is talking more about not wearing showy, flashy, or costly clothing, when "modest" or less showy clothing will do, as to not draw attention to themselves. The verse has probably been hijacked to mean whatever the church thinks is "modest". For example, forcing women to wear only long dresses, etc.
Click to expand...

The bit I highlighted has happily taken root in our fellowship since I joined. It used to be old fashioned farm dresses like 1930's and 1940's style were the rule (but NOT FLDS prairie dresses!) or maybe a long skirt with a top and then the argument was made that we stood out when we wore this stuff in town and we were attracting attention. Now it's more just dressing modestly like cover yourself, try to wear skirts that don't attract attention in public, wear dresses at home or service, and just be decent at home.
 
NVIII said:
This account has a couple takes on this topic that aren't lockstep with mainstream doctrine. Fairly consistent with what's been the consensus in this thread, but I think adds to it:

Click to expand...
Who is guilty in case of rape?

In West it was always male. Why? Self control.

We don't punish babies for public disturbance by their crying because babies can't control their crying.

If men couldn't control themselves, then only defence against unwanted touching (in general sense, any) would be for women not to show anything as Islam does.

This is why female clothing as temptation was always crazy idea. Men can control themselves.

Another question is inapropriate clothing for location and event causing person to look like social buffon.
 
I agree that wife(s) should dress(or not!) like the husband asks. When shopping for clothing she will ask my approval before buying. Some guys have a knack for patterns and colors but not me- I just know what I like. She has a closet full of very beautiful dresses most of which are $6 at Goodwill.
 
MemeFan said:
This is why female clothing as temptation was always crazy idea. Men can control themselves.
Click to expand...
Of course men can control themselves, but so can women, and, in This West (U.S.A.), the assumption was made in our legal system until the 1980s that women bore some responsibility for being provocative (I know this because I was involved with anti-rape groups and spent a good bit of time in courtrooms). Now a woman's clothing choices aren't permitted as evidence, nor is her sexual history.

But, just as men can control whether or not they act on sexual frustration, so can women act on not provoking it -- and some of it involves making wardrobe choices that don't purposefully advertise body parts in a way that is the equivalent of advertising availability (this, I've asserted many times, is the essence of modesty, the manner in which one not only dresses but the way one comports oneself with non-verbal cues).

We have swung too far by giving women the freedom to do whatever level of advertising and pursuing they desire while expecting men to just remain calm and collected when they're watching hips sway in yoga pants.
 
Advertising works.
A woman who is displaying what she has, but claims to not want the attention that she receives is ignorant and possibly evil.
 
Keith Martin said:
Of course men can control themselves, but so can women, and, in This West (U.S.A.), the assumption was made in our legal system until the 1980s that women bore some responsibility for being provocative (I know this because I was involved with anti-rape groups and spent a good bit of time in courtrooms). Now a woman's clothing choices aren't permitted as evidence, nor is her sexual history.

But, just as men can control whether or not they act on sexual frustration, so can women act on not provoking it -- and some of it involves making wardrobe choices that don't purposefully advertise body parts in a way that is the equivalent of advertising availability (this, I've asserted many times, is the essence of modesty, the manner in which one not only dresses but the way one comports oneself with non-verbal cues).

We have swung too far by giving women the freedom to do whatever level of advertising and pursuing they desire while expecting men to just remain calm and collected when they're watching hips sway in yoga pants.
Click to expand...
Off course women have some responsibility.

If you "invite" unwanted attention on purpose, you are dummy. But man's reaction was always final determinant. He and only he was punished.

I see two different issue. One is who us guilty legally and deserves to be punishment by force (law = rule who breaking is punished by force). Second is dummy and socially idiotical behaviour.

Woman with short skirt walking alone at night throught crime infested neighboorhood is second case clearly. You aren't allowed to take away somebody's body anatomy, no matter how dumm/stupid they are. NAP is absolute, with only one exception: life-saving.
 
NS4Liberty said:
Since being married about 3 years ago, my wife has asked me some hard questions. We were watching a movie and a scantily clad woman came on the screen and she asked, "What does it do to you when you see a woman dressed like that?" I didn't have an answer. At the time I believed the traditional translation of Matt. 5:28. Then she asked, "What are we gonna tell our kids about lust?"

Then I was playing the 2011 Tomb Raider. This was the reboot where they redesigned the main character, Lara, to be more realistic. She is wearing a tank top with a camisole underneath as the default outfit. She is also not real. My wife commented she didn't like me playing a game with an attractive character dressed like that. Again, I had no answer. I was still under the impression any sort of attraction or level of arousal to anyone but my wife was adultery.

This struck me as odd, though. Is it wrong to prefer to see attractive people in movies and other entertainment?

Then I discovered the better translation of Matt. 5:28 and polygyny. A wife doesn't have exclusive right to their husbands arousal and lust isn't what we were taught.

This also has implications for modesty discussions. Most modesty discussions I have heard involve Matt. 5:28.

It seems to me Matt. 5:28 has been weaponized to keep men in constant shame and submissive to their wives. Am I getting the right impression?

Does the better translation of Matt. 5:28 and polygyny change how you view and weigh entertainment and modesty?
Click to expand...
Hi there,

Ok I'm late to this but here's what I've found...

Firstly, you're right, Matthew 5:28 has been weaponized. Guilt makes money.

But what Jesus was addressing here was property rights, oathbreaking, and the inward heart.
The key word here is "lust". Today we understand "immoral sexual desire" when we see that word. But this is not what Christ meant. He used the Greek word "Epithumia". It's a neutral word meaning "strong desire". Jesus used it Himself when describing how much He wanted to have supper with the disciples. What's important to note is that this word has an action component to it. Hence why it refers to a strong desire. There is this inward decision one makes when desiring whatever object it may be.

In this case, one may say, "Ok, you're still desiring a woman and thus committing adultery". This is where the property rights comes into play. Jesus was explaining this commandment in light of the 10th commandment. The 10th commandment deals with not coveting one's neighbour's property. Guess what the Greek word is for "covet"... Epithumia. Now the object of desire in Matthew 5:28 is a woman, Greek - "gunh". This can mean woman or wife. But, seeing that Jesus is talking about one's neighbour's property, it can only mean one of two things, a wife, or a virgin still under her father's protection. However, He's speaking about adultery. Adultery is about oathbreaking, in this case, marital unfaithfulness. You cannot be unfaithful with a virgin to my knowledge. So, a correct reading of Matthew 5:28 may sound like "Anyone who fixes their desire upon the wife of another man has already broken the oath within his heart".

If Matthew 5:28 meant that any man looking sexually at any woman was adultery, then polygamy would not be possible. Matthew 5:28 was Jesus addressing the inward wickedness, even though the outward physical side seemed fine. It was a question as to whether one's heart was in the right place.

With much love!
 
frederick said:
Nor would monogamy be possible. Cheers
Click to expand...
Every man here looked lustfully at their wife or wives before they got married. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. Therefore by the modern definition, we are all sinning. And by the way, that includes every pastor, preacher, and ministry worker as well. Think they didn't lust (by the modern definition) after their future wife? Nonsense.
 
That is the reason I have begun to view the Commandments as "transactional". What I mean is that stealing is the lack of a proper buy and sell transaction. Lying is the purposeful misrespresentation of a transaction. Adultery is the lack of a proper procurement transaction of a woman to belong to a man(if she is not "available" then you can't get her). Therefore the coveting commandment is having a desire to obtain something(or someone) without a legal or proper transaction. In other words it is desiring something that you cannot legally obtain.
 
TheSeeker said:
Hi there,

Ok I'm late to this but here's what I've found...

Firstly, you're right, Matthew 5:28 has been weaponized. Guilt makes money.

But what Jesus was addressing here was property rights, oathbreaking, and the inward heart.
The key word here is "lust". Today we understand "immoral sexual desire" when we see that word. But this is not what Christ meant. He used the Greek word "Epithumia". It's a neutral word meaning "strong desire". Jesus used it Himself when describing how much He wanted to have supper with the disciples. What's important to note is that this word has an action component to it. Hence why it refers to a strong desire. There is this inward decision one makes when desiring whatever object it may be.

In this case, one may say, "Ok, you're still desiring a woman and thus committing adultery". This is where the property rights comes into play. Jesus was explaining this commandment in light of the 10th commandment. The 10th commandment deals with not coveting one's neighbour's property. Guess what the Greek word is for "covet"... Epithumia. Now the object of desire in Matthew 5:28 is a woman, Greek - "gunh". This can mean woman or wife. But, seeing that Jesus is talking about one's neighbour's property, it can only mean one of two things, a wife, or a virgin still under her father's protection. However, He's speaking about adultery. Adultery is about oathbreaking, in this case, marital unfaithfulness. You cannot be unfaithful with a virgin to my knowledge. So, a correct reading of Matthew 5:28 may sound like "Anyone who fixes their desire upon the wife of another man has already broken the oath within his heart".

If Matthew 5:28 meant that any man looking sexually at any woman was adultery, then polygamy would not be possible. Matthew 5:28 was Jesus addressing the inward wickedness, even though the outward physical side seemed fine. It was a question as to whether one's heart was in the right place.

With much love!
Click to expand...
No. Matthew 5:28 is about exactly what it says it’s about, adultery. Christ is talking about lusting after a married woman here. This is a restatement of the prohibitions against adultery and coveting your neighbor’s wife.
 
If certain kinds of anger are equivalent to murder in the heart, and lusting after a married woman is equivalent to adultery in the heart, can one commit "fornication in the heart"? What would that entail?
 
jtp said:
If certain kinds of anger are equivalent to murder in the heart, and lusting after a married woman is equivalent to adultery in the heart, can one commit "fornication in the heart"? What would that entail?
Click to expand...
Paying the prostitute in your daydreams?
 
jtp said:
If certain kinds of anger are equivalent to murder in the heart, and lusting after a married woman is equivalent to adultery in the heart, can one commit "fornication in the heart"? What would that entail?
Click to expand...
Fornication is a class of sin, not one specific sin. Your question is interesting though.
 
jtp said:
If certain kinds of anger are equivalent to murder in the heart, and lusting after a married woman is equivalent to adultery in the heart, can one commit "fornication in the heart"? What would that entail?
Click to expand...
I suppose if you pursue a desire to fornicate, that could be a form of "fornication in the heart", but I don't think having a desire to have sex with someone equals "fornication of the heart" with them. Men pursue women from a desire to have sex with them. Like all heterosexual men. For example, a man goes to a club for the purpose of finding a one night stand. Whether or not he succeeds, his purpose in his heart was to fornicate. On the other hand, a man meets an attractive woman and wants to have sex with her but will not do so outside of marriage is not "fornication of the heart".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top