Now that the holidays are behind us we can return to the completion of our series on the Exodus and the Ten Commandments. The previous essays in this series can be accessed through the links in the left hand column of this page.
As with the other Commandments please remember that they are intended to apply to practicing Jews and Christians. Those who would apply them to others who have not chosen to follow them abuse the original intention of the Commandments.
The Seventh Commandment is another terse statement of prohibition:
(Exo 20:14 NRSV) You shall not commit adultery. It is concerned with the physical act of adultery.
The first things I would like you to understand about this Commandment is that it is more narrowly conceived than most moderns realize. And it is difficult for us to understand its original meaning because the rules of the society then were so utterly different than our rules.
Likewise, we need to resist the temptation to read back into the original Commandment our understanding of what it means. To do so is to indulge ourselves in anachronistic thinking that perverts the original meaning.
There are responsible modern interpretations of the Commandment which we will discuss, and they are far different than the ancient interpretations. We must rigorously, however, not confuse the two.
First, let us look at the original application of the Commandment in ancient Israel.
One thing we need to understand before we can intelligently discuss this Commandment is that it was designed primarily to protect the stability of the family, the community and the nation. Issues of marital disloyalty struck at the very fabric of Israelite society.
Maintaining the family as the core of social order was considered so vital to the nation that adultery was punishable by death in the Covenant Code which applied the Commandments to the ancient Israelite society.
Adultery, as described in the Bible, applies to both men and women. It applies only to married persons, and to those who are betrothed to be married.
There is, however, a distinct "double standard" expressed in how this commandment was interpreted, since married men could commit adultery only with married women, while a married woman was said to have committed adultery if she had sex with any man.
Consensual adult sexual activity between unmarried persons was not expressly prohibited in those times, although many specific sexual acts are prohibited in later elaborations and applications of Torah.
For instance, the entire 18th chapter of Leviticus deals with prohibitions against several specific forms of incest, and includes many other sexual prohibitions, such as having sex during a woman's menstruation period, having intercourse with a relative's wife, homosexual sex between men, and sex with animals.
Men, however, are nowhere forbidden to have sex with prostitutes, and, consensual sex between a man, married or not, and an unmarried woman who was not a prostitute was not prohibited, provided the man then married that woman. Remember, a man then could have many wives.
If there was sexual intercourse between a man and an unmarried woman, whether or not the man was married, he was expected to marry the woman, but he was not punished for having sex with her before marriage.
In fact, it is clear that even the rape of a woman by a man was not specifically condemned, although it was frowned upon. But it was not condemned, provided the man married the women he raped.
The Bible story of the rape of Tamar is a story of the frustration of a raped girl and the revenge she and her brother took for the rape, when the King David, the girl's own father, did nothing about it.
The story tells of David's oldest son, Amnon, who raped his half-sister, Tamar, who begged him to marry her to take away the stigma. [There was no law against the marriage of siblings at that time.] But Amnon drove Tamar away, and while David felt disgraced and was saddened upon learning of the rape, he did nothing. Tamar then went to her full brother, Absalom, who had Amnon killed.
Clearly the biblical redactors saw this act of revenge as a form of justice or the story would not have survived in the Bible.
In a similar way, the Seventh Commandment was not a prohibition against polygamy, that is, a man having multiple wives, which was common practice in Old Testament times. Interestingly, polyandry, a woman having multiple husbands, was prohibited. This is simply a further example of the rampant double standard in those times.
Such ideas regarding the status and treatment of women are, of course, totally foreign to us; and they should be repugnant to thinking men and women today.
This double standard stemmed from the patriarchal nature of the society then. And while our society still has a long way to go in recognizing and enforcing equal rights for women, it has come a long way from the patriarchal society of ancient Israel.
Women had almost no rights in those times. Wives were considered the property of their husbands. They were chattel. If a woman were raped, for example, it was considered a big deal only because the rapist "used" another man's property without proper payment! But, if the rapist married the woman and paid an appropriate sum to the father of the woman, then the offended "owner" was compensated for his loss. The violation of the woman's very being was not an issue. That should be appalling to our ears today.
Let us now look at modern interpretations of the Commandment.
From this point in this essay the discussion focuses on modern Christian interpretation of the Commandment.
[It would be helpful if a Jewish reader of this series would, in comments here or in a separate post, give a brief explanation of modern Jewish interpretation of the Commandment.]
Modern Christian interpretation is based upon statements made by the founder of the Christian faith, Jesus of Nazareth.
I invite us now to focus on the very sharp contrast between the Seventh Commandment as interpreted in ancient Israel and Jesus' interpretation of it. Jesus says, (Mat 5:27-28, NRSV) "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Jesus is not saying that the prohibition against adultery is not applicable. It is. Jesus is against physical adultery. But Jesus is also saying that our understanding of adultery as simply a physical act is too narrow.
In its most obvious form, adultery is a physical act. But Jesus raises the stakes for all Christians smug enough to look down on those who have succumbed to physical adultery, by telling us that lusting after a woman is also committing adultery.
The only difference between President Jimmy Carter's admission of looking at a woman other than his wife with lust in his heart and the vast majority of men in this world is that he admitted it. And he knew it was a sin. Carter knew he had sinned and wanted to use his sin as an example of what other men also do but never admit they do it.
It never occurs to most Christian men that they are, in fact, sinning by lusting after women who are not their wives. Rather most would deny it to be a sin at all, saying that "it is only natural" and that "all men do it." The fact that neither of those excuses address an issue that Jesus clearly says is a sin does not cross their minds.
But Jesus has raised the bar. Just as he included angry thoughts in the prohibition against murder, so too here he includes lust filled thoughts in the prohibition against adultery. He tells us that what goes on in our hearts and minds is every bit as important as what we actually do.
Jesus here, as in all of his teachings, is interested in our motives, our inner-most intentions, our thoughts, our desires - many of which we shamefully hide from the rest of the world. But we do not hide those things from him. An ancient prayer describes God as the one "from whom no secrets are hid." Well, the Christ, Jesus, is the one from whom no secrets are hid.
Knowing this, it seems to me that Christians need to take a step back from the false pride in which we so often indulge. Such pride only layers one sin upon another. It comes from thinking that we are righteous because we do not actually do things which are clearly against God's commands.
Worse, it can come from thinking that we have gotten away with cheating because nobody has caught us in the act. Pride like that is a terrible sin. When we think that we are better than those who have been caught, or those who have recognized and confessed their sin, we fool only ourselves. We do not fool God.
Our faith teaches us that those who have sinned, be it adultery or some other sin, and have recognized that sin and sincerely confessed it, intending not to commit such a sin again, are far better in God's eyes than are those who sin, either in their hearts or by their actions, and have no intention of ever admitting that sin. God considers those who have confessed their sin to God, and have asked for forgiveness, to be righteous.
Yes, Jesus condemns physical adultery; but he has chosen to use the prohibition against adultery to call us to a higher standard which includes examining our own lusts and desires.
And he has introduced compassion for sinners along with self examination into the equation when addressing the sin of adultery.
When the people wanted to stone the woman who was found in adultery,to kill her, he did not condone her sin. Nor did he condemn her. His focus was not on her sin; rather, it was on those who would kill her: "Let the one who is without sin cast the first stone," was his response to what they proposed to do.
He knew their hearts, and He knew that none was without sin. He also knew that there is no hierarchy of sins. Sin is sin. And yet we so often consider our own sin small and another's sin large. But Jesus did not say "those who are without the sin of adultery." He said "those who are without sin," for he knew that all sin makes us unrighteous in the eyes of God.
In summary, while it is not valid to take anachronistically the interpretation of ancient Israel of the Seventh Commandment and apply that to our own lives, there are some things that we do know about applying it to modern practicing Christians.
Adultery is still a sin and when we commit it we violate God's law. But Christians also believe that through the love of God in Christ, we can take our sins to him and that he has covered those sins with his love. We can be forgiven.
By the same token, however, Christians are not given license to go right on sinning and confessing, sinning and confessing, over and over again. Confession is not a game. Jesus knows our hearts and our true intentions, and when we abuse the grace of forgiveness he knows it. He knows when we are walking in darkness, away from the light of God.
And we have learned that Jesus has raised the bar, changing the meaning of adultery from simply a physical act to a sin of the heart as well.
Whatever loopholes we might think there were before, since Jesus there are no loopholes for Christians. And because Jesus looks at the habits of the heart, he knows that none of us is without sin, be it adultery or pride or a host of other sinful intentions.
We are human and the truth is that, try as we may, we simply cannot not sin. But the good news is clear as well. God, through Jesus, has provided an answer to our sin. We can never be wholly righteous, but Christ is. And through his righteousness, when we confess our sins, seek forgiveness and mend our ways, we are made right with God.
If you are a Christian, your task is to constantly monitor not only your personal behavior but also your thoughts and intentions, doing your best to conform them to the instructions of God. And, when you do not, your task is to turn in confession and repentance to the one who can and will cover your sin with his love.
God bless.
550 page views 2010 01 16
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Lucy Mercer
Erica K
Shawn O'Shea
Melissa Holbrook Pierson
Sissy414
Raymond Roske
Salon.com
Comments
I'll be back to read more comments and responses later. Interested in seeing if any might step up to disagree with the equating of lusting in the heart to the physical act of adultery, and if so how they view that.
I've seen a number of writers on this site proclaim their fidelity, while many of their comments and posts would fall into this other category. Not chastising, merely wondering if any will speak up.
Thanks.
Especially in the case of divorced individuals ( like myself). It's all over the Bible, but just looking in the New Testament, (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Corinthians, etc.), "... the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery."
It seems the divorced person is "doomed." I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this, when you have a chance.
Thanks.
I don't know about most people, but that was how I was raised. Both sets of grandparents were together for 60 and 75 years, until one day they lost the other due to death.
I remember last year being up at my grandparents house in the winter, and we were putting a bench together for their back porch. When the bench was done, they both sat down on the bench. I watched my grandma move as close as she could get to my grandpa, and she looked up at him with the "High School love look" in her eyes. In August they celebrated their 75 th year Anniversary, she passed away on Nov 4th from a brain tumor. That night my cousin was helping my grandpa get ready for bed. He looks up at her and says "You know what?" She said "No Grandpa what?" He said "This is the first night in 75 years that I won't have her next to me." No that is love!!!! If it isn't I don't know what is..
But I was raised to know and believe that that kind of love is possible, I have seen it happen in my life time.
~~Sorry I got choked up here on this comment,.. real tears..~~~
Thank you so much for such a beautiful heartfelt and touching post.
In addition, what are the rules on sex prior to marriage (ie the unmarrieds and, I would guess, the unbetrothed).
And, while I certainly agree the basic tenets of Christian teachings are aimed at getting us to adhere to a higher standard (hardly a bad thing), it seems sometimes to me -- and I say this with great respect -- that the whole idea is to make it impossible ever to be free of the fear of guilt/sin.
I'm expressing that badly, but it reminds me, ironically, of what an angry regimental sergeant-major once said to me: "Son, if the army wants to get you, it'll find something somewhere in the Queen's Rules and Regulations that you've violated."
The trivializing of sex has much to do with the degradation of our culture.
Much of what I say below was covered by you liberally in the article, so excuse the overlap and some repetition, but it is necessary for my points of conflict, besides which, however, we mostly agree.
I grew up in a neighborhood which was Jewish, Italian and Irish. I had many dinners at the homes of my Jewish friends and when there I observed their table rites and noticed the intensely sharp sense of satire and comedy of exaggeration in their stories that delighted me as they were very close to the sort of repartee’ I was used to in my own family dinners and discussions in which witty remarks, hyperbolic comedy and serious satire, and repartee’ were considered ingenious and memorable. People remember exaggeration more than boring monosyllabic talk. Hyperbole is a strong teaching method and I used it in the lecture hall with increasing frequency over the years. Students loved it.
But, straight translations reveal one thing about biblical writers and specifically about Jesus. He more than others was, in the Hebrew Custom a string user of hyperbole, both comic and extended exaggeration for dramatic effect as in the speck in the eye of the brother condemned by the sibling with a beam in his own.
Hyperbole is a Jewish Custom (and an Italian custom) and it led invariably to the development of great comedy writers many of which were Jewish and Italian.
AND yet Monte, Jesus treated every example of adultery as a minor offense forgiving the women and in the case of the Samaritan Woman at Jacob's Well, he did not even tell the woman with five previous husbands, and living with a man to whom she was not married, to "go and sin no more." And in fact she brought him the conversion of the entire town. Further the law was one sided, as you said, whereas originally both male and female were to suffer stoning by Jesus’ day only the female was subject to stoning. This was certainly a case of gender bias. How unfair was that? Note that never were any males brought before Jesus for committing adultery, or if there were they were never noted. In fact, the Temple Prostitutes were a once valued profession.
The adultery law was precipitated by the reality that from before Moses to even beyond Jesus' day polygamy was still being practiced even by Christian Bishops. Jesus' view was the same as that of Fredrico Fellini, kindness. If one must have other wives one must be kind to those no longer of child bearing age, so keep them and give them light duties. Which was the theme of his film 8-1/2.
Otherwise turning a rejected wife out, what chance back then would they have, prostitution? Farm field work? Starvation?
The sin of adultery has naught to do with sex, but is a matter of loyalty. Once that bond has been discussed and agreed to be broken there is no more evil attached to "adultery."
My research on this matter has included hundreds of documents both religious and legal and research into polygamous societies which unanimously agree with Jesus' and Fellini's view point.
In either case, husband or wife as the offended one, if forgiveness is not given, then the person withholding it or carrying the grudge is Hell Bound, whether male or female. Those who hold the other in hatred for committing adultery are worse that the original offender.
“Vengeance is Mine Alone, saith the Lord!”
Nevertheless, I Rated the article for it’s taking both sides. However, I maintain my comments are close to the truth of Jesus’ thoughts and later research by unbiased theologians and anthropologists.
God Bless, RATED!
We will, I think, have a lot of people questioning things here on this Commandment and we will not all come down in the same place, Christian or not. This issue is not easy and there are many individual issues that will affect how we think about it.
"...for I have sinned in my thoughts and in my deeds, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do ..." that is part of an opening prayer we use in our Church. "
Rated
"Consensual adult sexual activity between unmarried persons was not expressly prohibited in those times, although many specific sexual acts are prohibited in later elaborations and applications of Torah."
What I have always heard is-- be a virgin. Be a virgin. Be a virgin. No sex until you are married. No sex until you are married.
===========================================
Leonde, I think that it is wonderful that you have been able to use the Commandments as a basis of norming values in your own life, regardless of your religious inclinations, or lack thereof. A lot of Christians have not come anywhere close to knowing how to do that. Some of that comes from our tendency to see the Bible as a Chinese menu, where we take a little of this and a little of that and pick and choose from column A and column B to form an ethical guideline that fits the way that we live. That is not exactly how the faith is supposed to work. Christians are supposed to form themselves to the ethical guidelines of the faith. That is harder. I am glad that the Commandments work for you.
===========================================
You are right, Scupper. And I have found myself looking for the loopholes sometimes. W. C. Fields once quipped, "I spend a lot of time studying the Bible ---- looking for the loopholes."
============================================
Hey, Spotted Mind, you bring up a problematic close to my heart. I am a divorced man who remarried. If you take the quotes of Jesus on divorce as being instructive then you and I are clearly in violation of the commandment.
Mark is the earliest gospel and the quotations attributed to Jesus in Mark are the ones most likely to be authentic. If you read his words on divorce in Mark, both in a solid New Testament translation like the NRSV and in the koine Greek as originally written, they are declarative statements, not hortatory ones. That is, Jesus is explaining how it IS, and not exclaiming on his opinion of it. He is silent about what he thinks of that Commandment.
But, while that is technically true, I do not think it is all that easy to dance around. When, in other areas, he has explained the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) guidelines he has said that the OT is not to be superseded by his teachings, but rather that he "fulfills" it. So, as much as I would like to be let off the hook by parsing the language, I think he meant that he felt that the OT prohibitions on divorce were right.
That being said, I do not think either of us is "doomed." What we are asked to do is to understand that our divorce is seen as a sin. If that is the case then for me I have no problem with that because my divorce was of my own doing and I should not have. On the other hand I have counseled women to consider a divorce when they were being beaten and abused in a marital relationship. So, I guess I was counseling, as a pastor, a "sin."
All I can say with any certainty on that is that to my mind the sin of divorce is no worse and no better than the many other sins we each commit routinely. I do not believe in a hierarchy of sins, but many Christians do. Regardless, Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more." That sounds to me like forgiveness.
Now if you and I decided to marry and divorce over and over and to flaunt it I would think that, while that is still technically forgivable, it stretches credulity to believe that we take the marriage vows seriously.
That is, of course, not a wholly satisfactory answer to a purist who insists that we never sin and that we be perfect. I would like to be but I am not.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is good to hear from you, Incandescent. Your uncle is unfortunately typical of too many Christians. Sometimes when we are deep in our own sins, and we know it but refuse to admit it, the temptation looms large to find a scape goat in someone else who we think is a "worse" sinner than we are. That conveniently forgets that, in St. Paul's words, "we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God." Jesus condemned such hypocrisy saying that we would do well to take the "plank" out of our own eye before we started screaming about the small speck in another's. That some actions that were classified in the Old Testament as sins according to the Isrealites are said in the Bible to be "abominations" has been a dead horse long flogged by conservative Christians who insist that "abominations" are a higher order of sin than other sins. But that horse will not run. A close look at the meanings of the words in the Bible cannot yield that result. But that is just my opinion. And, of course, I believe that I am right. ;-)
==============================================
Hey, Don, glad to see you back. I had seen no mention of the Hume thing, and did not know what you were talking about until I glanced at the Front Page and see that there is a dust up about Brit Hume's gratuitous advice to Tiger Woods about what religion he should be. I have no thoughts on it to share here because they would be off topic to this essay and I have always insisted that we stay on topic regarding my posts.
In love,
Amanda
I think that holds true today just as much as it did 3000+ years ago in ancient Palestine/Canaan. Just look at American society and the harm that has been inflicted on it due to lax concern with the sanctity of marriage, out of wedlock births, and divorce. Adultry is truly a terrible sin.
I, like spotted_mind, do have trouble with Paul's expansion of adultry to include remarriage after divorce. Of course, Paul also spoke against women cutting their hair -- an abomination according to the translation I most often read. It is with certain of Paul's epistles that I have the most trouble with the New Testament. What do we interpret as universal truth, and what is merely the custom of the age?
=============================================
Hey, B1, see my reply to Spotted Mind as well as this reply. There are no current rules about consenting adults that I can dredge out of the good book. Unless, of course, you believe that the rules that governed ancient Israel are applicable to our current lives. I do not.
I do not share your belief "that the whole idea is to make it impossible ever to be free of the fear of guilt/sin" if by that you mean the Christian ethics are designed primarily to keep the laity in line. I am as aware as anyone of the abuses of those in power in the Church over the centuries. I do not doubt that Christian ethics have been used that way. And I abhor that.
But the "whole idea" of Christian and other religious ethics is designed to provide a way, instruction, Torah, to live the good life under God. If one does not believe that it is possible to live a good, joyous life under God then I suppose you could come to that conclusion.
And, Christianity certainly provides a clear and simple way to avoid "the fear of guilt/sin." I have never in my life felt any fear about being a sinner. I have sinned and I have felt guilty for doing so. I actually feel the world would be a far better place if more people would feel guilty about some of the things that they think and do.
But as I explain in conclusion to this essay there is a simple and permanent way to "free" yourself from that sin and any feelings of guilt if you are a Christian. And, if you are a Protestant, that way is between you and God, there is no intermediary, no priest, to decide what penance you are to pay. I really don't think the analogy to the army holds. If one thinks that Christianity is primarily a bunch of rules and regulations then he or she has missed the essence of the faith, which is love.
==============================================
Thanks for reading and commenting, Kathy. I agree with you. When we trivialize something God given, beautiful and part of our spiritual makeup as well as our physical makeup we do run the risk of losing any understanding of what it was intended to be. We will both now be considered starched shirts. ;-)
==============================================
Peter: Thanks for your comments, lengthy !! though they were. ;-) I think they stand on their merits. I have read them a couple of times and have given up searching for any significant "points of conflict." I don't disagree with you, although you may think you disagree with me. I understand the reasons you give for believing that once there is agreement to divorce that there is no more adultery, if that is a reasonable summary of your main point. I am not so confident as you that yours is the correct interpretation --- but I like it. A lot. I rather think though that it is not the orthodox position even of the church in which you were raised. I think that, on this and many other ethical issues, the Church's position hardened over the centuries to a position much harsher than that of Jesus. Perhaps that was the result of the use of guilt/sin as a control mechanism such as B-1 was concerned about in his comment. I don't doubt that happened often.
When I write these essays I try very hard to show the orthodox Protestant positions on these issues first and then, usually in replies to comments, as I did in my reply to Spotted Mind, above, express my own opinions which may disagree with orthodoxy. I am glad that you have elaborated on some of these issues and have offered an somewhat different interpretation.
==============================================
Yes, Trudge, I agree. As I said confession is not a game and we cannot keep doing the same things over and over, and then confessing them over and over and think that going through the motions is the same thing as changing our ways to comport them as closely as possible to the wishes of God.
==============================================
Hey, Owl, so good to hear from you. The anthropology of ethics is pretty revealing, isn't it?
==============================================
Delia: Unmarried sex was not prohibited nor was there any punishment for it IF the man then married the woman. The exception to that was a man having sex with a prostitute. Knowing men I would say that they probably wanted their wives to be virgins before they had sex with them but not necessarily before they officially married. And, even in Jesus day, Mary and Joseph were betrothed and Matthew makes it clear they did not have sex before they were married. This was important to the story because Mary was said to be a "virgin" when she got pregnant (immaculate conception). But if all betrothed couples never had sex there would have been no need to emphasize the point, meaning that many couples likely had sex, then sought approval of the marriage from the father of the bride and then married.
==========================================
Hey, Sandra, good to have you drop by and will see you when you get back.
I'm more concerned with the New Testament version of the Commandment. I would be the first to say that adultery is one of the most destructive things that can hapen in a relationship, whether married or not. It is a betrayal of trust and is difficult, if not impossible to atone for.
As far as I can tell the other commandments are within reason to not be acted upon with a conscious effort. Even physical adultery can be controlled by a conscious effort. Just don't do it. But mental adultery? How do you stop that? It seems impossible for a species that is so hard wired to have sex to be able look at a beautiful woman and not think "I wonder". Is that possible? Sure, not acting on the impulse is well within anyone's ability in my mind, but ignoring those impulses seems impossible to me. It would be denying all fantasies of the opposite sex (or same sex, if that were the case). I'm curious about that because I lust and fantasize all the time and consider it normal if maybe even healthy. I mean, when some shapely woman bends over in the grocery store to get something off the bottom shelve I don't wonder who her husband is and I don't act on it but......well I'm just curious about what your opinion is about something like that. It's not like a conscious thought, well yes, it ends up like that, but first it is an impulse, isn't it? Or maybe I'm just really screwed up. hehe.
And, yes, it often is good to also confess your transgressions to the one you harmed and to ask forgiveness of them. But those transgressions were also transgressions against God and the way God would have you live. And some transgressions against God do not necessarily transgress against anyone. For instance, pride, lust in your heart, envy, jealousy, gluttony, and other sins may be strictly in your heart and others may not even be aware you have those problems. Those are strictly between you and God. If you think about it, all prayer could be called "unnecessary" if God already knows what you want. But, again, praying in clear, normal, every day language will clarify for you exactly what is wrong and exactly what you want to say about it to God, or to clarify for yourself just what you want to thank God for doing in your life.
==============================================
Thank you, Natalie. Much appreciate your reading and commenting.
=================================
Good thoughts, all, Procopius. I share your concerns and observations.
Paul has been a lifelong study of mine and it is indeed difficult to know what things he says are to be considered universally applicable and which are to be seen as commentary addressed to a particular church or group in a church that applied only to that time and place.
I am going to be very general here in offering some guidelines, but maybe it will help if I tell you some of the first steps I take in deciding about specific things Paul said. If he is speaking to a specific issue in response to queries made to him by leaders of the church or to information brought to him by one of his disciples from a particular church often his remarks are not to be seen as universally applicable, particularly is he is addressing social propriety issues.
And, if he speaks of things that apply to living until the imminent return of Christ, which Paul firmly believed would happen in his lifetime, then those responses are likely not to be universally applicable either.
On the other hand, if he speaks, as he does in First Corinthinans 15 about how he learned of the resurrection and what it meant, because he had heard that many people did not believe what he taught, or had twisted what he said about it, then it is likely that he was speaking the same thing to all churches and it was to be seen as universally applicable.
Thus, for example, when he speaks of individual morality, not eating pork, or women wearing head coverings, or remaining a slave, or not divorcing, or any number of smaller issues that relate to specific questions and squabbles in specific churches chances are that those things only apply to that situation.
When, for example, he says it is better not to marry, but if you can't control your desires, then marry, he was thinking that in the context that you might as well stay in the status quo since Christ was coming any day now so why change?
If you have questions about particular things he has said and how and to whom it applies I would be happy to answer your questions if you send me a PM. I have likely at one time or another studied that issue and will tell you what I have concluded.
==============================================
HI, Robin. Wise and perceptive comments. I surely think that we would do well to limit the Commandments to personal application and reflection. We do, as you say, sometimes have to judge, but that should be seldom, and done with humility and great reluctance. I make it a rule, as do you, not to judge and thus insist that if I am going to break that rule there has to be a whole lot stronger reason than just because I want to.
So many of the world's problems lie at the feet of judging others that I would think we would take a clue from that. But each generation seems bound and determined to make the mistakes of the last one all over again.
I do hope you find that kind of love again. You are a loving and giving person and someone will be lucky to have you love them.
Nah.
My real thought is that you are normal. And that was Jesus' point. Exactly as it was about murder and our thoughts of harming others. We ALL have those thoughts. Thus those internal thoughts which we think nobody else even knows about are known to God and are also "sin."
So, if that is the case, why do we think we are we so much better than those who act out what we are already thinking? Each of us, the thinker and the doer are sinners.
THAT is his point. He is saying "Don't be such a self-righteous hypocrite." He is not saying that it is OK to take the step of physical adultery or physical murder. He is saying that we have no leg to stand on when we look down at other sinners.
Try not to make much more out of it than that. There are other subtleties to what he is saying but that is close enough and I don't want to confuse you further.
Meanwhile, control that lust!!! Be like me. Old. Perfect and Noble.
Take care, friend.
As always I've enjoyed the scholarly-yet-very human approach taken in your writing, and come away, as always, feeling not judged. That's a gift in itself, far better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick :) . Thanks for that, and for any thoughts on this expanding of the scope you may care to share.
He is stating a fact: that to sin is more, much more, than simply doing some physical act. We can sin in our hearts, in our minds, and that sin is just as much a sin as the physical act.
On the other hand I do believe he is asking more of us that that we "be mindful." Our nature may be God given but keep in mind that Christianity teaches that we are also fallen creatures, less than we were created to be.
I would argue not that we are fallen because of some apple somebody crunched and miraculously made our genes bad, generation after generation, but rather that our God given free will can be used for good or for evil and God does not try to control that in us.
God, for instance, wants us to love him and love one another. If we believe that there is a God who is the Creator of all things, including us, he certainly could have made us so that we automatically loved him and loved one another.
But what would we learn if we were made that way? Nothing. How would we grow, get better, be better people? He wants us to learn and grow and to decide for ourselves to live as righteous lives as we are capable of.
That means disciplining the will to accept such things as delayed gratification as a virtue in many instances, to decide to put the other's well being before our own (agape love) and to rise above our baser instincts to a place where we excel in the virtues of love as Paul describes them in 1 Corinthians 13.
He is saying that is just as "natural," even more natural if viewed from God's point of view, than being narcissistic and hedonistic.
Our goals and our eyes should be on spiritual things more than material things. And if we do that, ultimately, like Augustine, we will feel that unquenchable need that the material world can never fill: "O Lord, our hearts are restless until they rest in Thee."
So, yes, it is not really suppression Jesus is after. He is not the leader of the thought police that some right wing Christians see him as. Rather, he teaches that there will be less and less room for selfish, baser thoughts, and deeds for that matter, when our hearts and minds are filled with higher, spiritual thoughts.
An anology would be to ask, how do we defeat evil? Do we defeat evil with more evil? That is the way of divisivness and war. Or could we, can we, really only defeat evil by overwhelming it with good?
Christians believe that, on the Cross, Jesus exercised the ultimate in selfless love by taking all of our evil unto himself and smothering it with his boundless love for humankind. Not for Christians. There were no Christians then. But for all of us.
Good thoughts, AJ. Thanks for your comments.
""Don't be such a self-righteous hypocrite." He is not saying that it is OK to take the step of physical adultery or physical murder. He is saying that we have no leg to stand on when we look down at other sinners."
That explanation actually clears up a lot for me. I catch myself being a hypocrite quite often and have to put myself in the other person's shoes and rethink my position on a lot of matters. Human nature doesn't always act in our favor.
What you've "boiled down" makes perfect
sense--a sin is to be forgiven.
Again, thanks--I appreciate it.
:-)
Since this was "hebrew school" I attended and not comparative religion, I never got satisfactory answers questions about Jesus and Christianity. But that is off topic. I'm struck by Lea's comment about Fundmentalists and the adultery question, as well as the commandment thou shall not bear false witness against others. But that' probably another post for another time.
People with good heart and intentions make vows to each other to stay faithful to one another. Sometimes those vows are broken. People are flawed individuals and are imperfect.
These commandments make great sense, but like all good ideas are hard to live by. That why human are the only animals who blush. They're the only ones who have to. R.
Regarding divorce: My own personal belief is that G-d intended marriage to be a joining of two individuals, whereby both would be held to certain standards. When one partner violates those standards, there needs to be a means of redress. As an example I would stipulate that if I were to beat my wife, she should have means of terminating the marriage because I have clearly violated not only the expectation that I love and respect her, but also the integrity of our union.
Seems to me even G-d would have to grin and accept that as a reasonable solution. I would further put forth that while it is G-d's intention that such unions be eternal, I think He also recognizes our failings and is willing to give us some room for error. If, as you put it, someone were to continuously marry and divorce, that seems to indicate a much deeper problem that may not be so easily forgiven.
Just my own two cents. Which, given the current state of the economy, I probably should have kept. :-D
Oh, and I agree with you wholeheartedly regarding our tendency to be imperfect beings. It is my belief that G-d has provided a goal for us to reach for. Whether we can actually attain (and consistently maintain) that goal is highly questionable.
=================================
Pilgrim: I think you nailed it: "Adultery kills trust, and trust is one of the chief foundations needed for a marriage to work."
==================================
Cominghome: Sounds like that Bishop is a keeper. Nice to see that someone representing church authority at a high level has some common sense.
=============================
Hi, Spotted Mind: glad what I discussed made sense to you.
=======================================
AJ: always interesting that we do seem to get to the same place, if by different routes. There are always many ways to get to where we want to go. If you want to have a PM discussion on other questions or issues that will be fine with me.
=====================================
Glad to get your comments, OESheepdog. Much appreciated. They are good and sensible comments.
The issue for Jews is how the 613 rules are to be applied today. For Christians it is a bit easier because most Christians, other than the most fundamentalists among us, do not believe that the 613 rules of the Covenant Code necessarily apply to Christians today. Rather, we continually interpret and reinterpret the 10 Commandments within the current family of Christian faith as to their applicability to our lives.
I am constantly amazed by the strict and narrow interpretation of the Bible in all phases of ethics that Fundamentalist Christians insist on. I have never had the nerve to think that my interpretation of Biblical text was the "only" valid interpretation. To assume that we know exactly what God wants in all situations is to exhibit enormous chutzpah.
==============================================
Hey, Bill, kind of scary that you got through the latest post in the series already. Glad you have though. I think your personal perspective on divorce is very sensible. God is grinning.
=======================================
Zuma: thanks for reading and commenting. I do not believe that the applications of the Commandments by the ancient Israelites necessarily apply to modern Christians. We can choose to interpret the Commandments the same way, but in most instances I think we would find them inapplicable to us. For example, the things that were punishable by death seem bizarre to us. And that like is the feeling of many modern Jews as well.
I've often heard about, and wondered about, the validity that certain chapters of the Bible written by women were deleted from the text. If true, this would certainly fill some gaps between my intellect and my heart concerning such matters. I don't beieve the Creator I know would condone such hypocricy.
your thoughts? another great post Monte
I find it unlikely because there is no external information to overcome the internal evidence that the Bible was written by men. I think it would be really neat to find out that women did particpate in writing pars of the Bible.
Perhaps we tend to forget that women were considered chattel not just in ancient times but right up to and through the Enlightenment.
It is really only since the women got the right to vote early in the 20th century that women have begun to move to a more equitable place at the social table. There have always been exceptions but those exceptions tended to recognize the right of women to respect, all the while denying them the right to power. And in vast parts of the world today women have little respect from men, and even less access to power.