Question on Matthew 5:29

[speculator]

Can an unmarried adult man lusting for an unmarried adult woman fell the necessity to eradicate his eye or his arm and then throw them away?

 

[De_Maria]

It 's about adultery.
Can you commit adultery without marriage ? (not symbolically).

Yes. The third person does not need to be married to enter an adulterous affair.

If not it must be about marriage.

No. It’s about adultery. Adultery is not an aspect of marriage. It is a violation of it.

 

[De_Maria]

Can an unmarried adult man lusting for an unmarried adult woman fell the necessity to eradicate his eye or his arm and then throw them away?

Yes. Many frequently feel that way when they are fighting the lust of their eyes.

 

[Wm777]

Thank you to all who are participating. I haven’t chimed in yet, as I wanted to see what you all had to say, but I’ve been listening.

So far the thread has branched into roughly three different areas: 1.) Castration, 2.) Hyperbole, and 3.) Adultery. I’ll address each in that order below.

1.) As for “castration”, I hadn’t thought about it with respect to that term, specifically because Jesus said “eye” and “hand”. However, if we use the term “castration”, then it links to gender dysphoria issues. The following article on PubMed (a highly acceptable, common and credible medical research site) has an article on contemporary eunuchs:

Eunuchs in contemporary society: characterizing men who are voluntarily castrated (part I) - PubMed

We present evidence that the majority of self-identified voluntary eunuchs are not male-to-female transsexuals. Whereas the majority identify as male, many view themselves as in an alternate nonmale, nonfemale, gender space. We therefore suggest that male-to-eunuch is a valid transgender identity.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

It draws the following conclusions:

a.) We present evidence that the majority of self-identified voluntary eunuchs are not male-to-female transsexuals.
b.) Whereas the majority identify as male, many view themselves as in an alternate nonmale, nonfemale, gender space.
c.) We therefore suggest that male-to-eunuch is a valid transgender identity.

I’m not sure I agree with it’s conclusions, but the point is - a literal interpretation of Jesus words could result in gender dysphoria here.

Personally, I dont think castration would work. There are modern eunuchs, and they can still have “lustful thoughts” and engage in sinful sexual activities. The effect of castration just seems to make a person unable to procreate.

2.) As for hyperbole, we venture into one of those strange areas of Catholicism, which creates a lot of interpretive problems. If “scripture cannot be set aside”, and “God can neither deceive, nor be deceived”, then how can Jesus be exaggerating for effect? To exaggerate is not to tell the plain and simple truth in its entirety, but to aim to make the subject appear more than it actually is. I agree the truth of the matter is adultery, and I understand the moral slant, but the solution Jesus proposes still seems too confusing and extreme.

3.) Adultery. The actual problem Jesus described was “lust”. That’s what he said. Speaking as such, “lust” is merely at first a temptation that has not necessarily been acted upon. I don’t think anyone here, including Jesus, would fault a person for the natural problems of their physical constitution. In fact, it’s arguable, when we overcome temptations and solve problems in new ways, we could even benefit from them (medically, in this case). That’s why He Himself healed the blind man in John. It seems more likely He would become concerned if sins and temptations were to be sought out and acted upon inappropriately, such as by abandoning one’s spouse, cheating on one’s spouse, engaging with third parties with one’s spouse (polygamy), etc… also, if the adulterous act is taken outside the context of a recognized marriage, then what?

The results here have all proven interesting, and they have thickened the plot… but - while some may take the passage literally - even if we did, the research above suggests the literal “castration argument” gives rise to a whole lot of problems some fundamentalists would probably rather not contemplate…

 

[speculator]

There is a special legal and personal relationship between a man and a woman called marriage.

Adultery as you write is a violation of that relationship. How can you say that adultery doesn’t regard marriage?

 

[speculator]

I have got the problem of gender disphoria but I don’t take it home.

I believe we can agree on the necessity of a great body or personal or interpersonal change followed by a physical spatial separation = throw away (I believe in symbol).

 

[Wm777]

There is a special legal and personal relationship between a man and a woman called marriage.

Adultery as you write is a violation of that relationship. How can you say that adultery doesn’t regard marriage?

Please re-read what I wrote…

It seems more likely He (Jesus) would become concerned if sins and temptations were to be sought out and acted upon inappropriately , such as by abandoning one’s spouse, cheating on one’s spouse, engaging with third parties with one’s spouse (polygamy), etc… also, if the adulterous act is taken outside the context of a recognized marriage, then what?

What I did was to address lust as a temptation and adultery on a broader scale than marriage.

That’s not to say an adulterous act could not occur within the context of marriage. Such acts happen, we all know…

But the problem of adultery is broader and more inclusive than simply being limited and applicable only to married people.

For instance, premarital sex is adulterous.

So - by not addressing instances of non-marital sexual relations - one would be underestimating the problem of adultery…

What I was saying, however, was… the problem of lust isn’t a sin… it’s only a temptation, so one is not culpable for adultery unless one deliberately seeks out and acts upon the temptation…

Maybe that is why the admonishment is or can be legitimately exaggerated… Jesus is trying to counter a threat, not punish an actual occurrence…

And, actually, when a woman caught in and guilty of adultery is brought before him - he doesn’t judge her, punish her or harm her… He saves her…

Thanks be to God or his mercy…

 

[Gorgias]

The divine author has inspired the writers of the New Testament to write in Greek. I therefore recognize texts in Greek and I don’t recognize translations.

Then please quote for us where, in those Greek texts, that it says that we should only “recognize Greek texts”. Heck… show us a quotation that we should only recognize texts from ‘Scripture’ as authoritative!

Can you commit adultery without marriage ? (not symbolically).

Yes. I, as an unmarried man, can commit adultery with a married woman.

Thanks for asking. Glad I could clear that up for you.

So far the thread has branched into roughly three different areas: 1.) Castration, 2.) Hyperbole, and 3.) Adultery.

Sometimes, all three happen in the same context, albeit in the opposite order.

 

[Wm777]

Yes. I, as an unmarried man, can commit adultery with a married woman.

or… even an unmarried woman… I think the woman they were trying to stone was probably single because she didnt have a husband we know of there…

Just visiting a porn site is supposed to be adulterous from what the examen sheet beside the confessionals at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception says…

Again, it’s a good thing Jesus was merciful… I dont want to throw any rocks… or have any surgeries…

 

[Fauken]

Just visiting a porn site is supposed to be adulterous from what the examen sheet beside the confessionals at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception says…

From Matthew:

“5:28 But I say to you, that whosoever shall look on a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

 

[Elf01]

or… even an unmarried woman… I think the woman they were trying to stone was probably single because she didnt have a husband we know of there…

Given the time period, and the law she had broken, it’s more likely she was married

 

[speculator]

I find in wikipedia that adultery is a sentimental or sexual relation between two persons one of them being married.

 

[Gorgias]

or… even an unmarried woman…

An unmarried man and an unmarried woman? That’s fornication, not adultery.

I think the woman they were trying to stone was probably single because she didnt have a husband we know of there…

The problem with the whole scene is that “it takes two to tango”, and they only brought the woman. It doesn’t imply that she’s single – just that they didn’t bring the man along, as well.

Just visiting a porn site is supposed to be adulterous

I would say that it’s a sin against the sixth commandment, but that doesn’t imply ‘adultery’, per se, from a strict standpoint.

I find in wikipedia that adultery is a sentimental or sexual relation between two persons one of them being married.

Well, thank goodness that we have Wiki to provide definitions for us!

 

[speculator]

If an unmarried young man can commit adultery with a married woman there is her marriage at stake.

If both are free of marital bonds there is no marriage at stake but there is porneia that is fornication.

 

[speculator]

I recognize only Greek new testament as textual reference.

You can recognize any Latin or any other text whatever you want

 

[Gorgias]

I recognize only Greek new testament as textual reference.

OK… I’ll bite: then why, in your thread on Mt 24, did you utilize an English-language passage as your citation? And, moreover, a translation that didn’t match up well to the Greek version?

 

[speculator]

A young unmarried man “lusting” for a young unmarried woman commits no adultery,
If one of them is married

 

[speculator]

On an English forum I use English.
My personal translation is always from Greek and my measuring instrument is Greek grammar and syntax and meaning.

 

[Wm777]

@speculator @Gorgias

Let’s play nicely guys.

I’m at work, so I can’t do a deep dive on a reference.

I think the CCC might be the go to guide on the matter. Discerning particular sins can difficult.

In all cases above - we’re pretty much doomed… I’m pretty sue, however you look at anything lustful - if you act on them, they’re all mortal sins… So we’re probably all in peril…

 

[Gorgias]

Let’s play nicely guys.

Just asking for consistency between what behavior is claimed and what behavior is actually witnessed.

A young unmarried man “lusting” for a young unmarried woman commits no adultery,
If one of them is married

Jesus disagrees with you:
Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ βλέπων γυναῖκα πρὸς τὸ ἐπιθυμῆσαι αὐτὴν ἤδη ἐμοίχευσεν αὐτὴν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ. (Mt 5:28)

My personal translation is always from Greek

Except… it wasn’t a “personal translation”; it was the JW version.

and my measuring instrument is Greek grammar and syntax and meaning.

Except… we demonstrated that the English translation you provided didn’t fit Greek meaning or grammar.