| Women and Sexual Sins
|
| This is a study of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28 (from his so-called "Sermon on the Mount"). This article will attempt to answer the following questions:
What does "lust" mean? Is "lust" a temptation or a sin? Is temptation a sin? Did Jesus teach something new, or did he teach what was from the beginning? Did Jesus "add to" or "take away" from God's Law? What is adultery? Is it a sin to lust after an unmarried woman? Is it a sin to have sex with an unmarried woman? Do all sins require a blood sacrifice? Are spiritual truths represented by physical truths? What are all the sexual sins listed in scripture? |
| Jesus taught nothing New
Before we cover Matthew 5, let us establish another scriptural truth. Jesus taught nothing new! He might have taught in new ways, but he did not teach us new laws. Everything Jesus taught was from the beginning, and is found in the Old Testament books. That's why he commonly preceded his teachings with “it is written,” or “the scriptures saith,” and then proceeded to quote God's written law from the Old Testament. Jesus might have explained what the Old Testament laws meant in different words, such as by using parables and such, but nonetheless, the truths he taught are all found in the Old Testament. Matthew 5 is commonly called “The Sermon on the Mount.” The Sermon on the Mount deals with righteous personal conduct. Many people believe Jesus was teaching new truths here, and that Jesus was laying down new laws, and abolishing Old Testament laws. However, this is not true. Each and every statement he says in this chapter is taken directly from the Old Testament. He was not changing God's Law! As a matter of fact, in the middle of his Sermon on the Mount, he paused to stress the truth that the Old Testament laws have not passed away! Matthew 5:17-18, "Think not that I came to abolish the law, or the prophets: I came not to abolish, but to fulfil. For verily I say to you, Until heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle in no wise shall pass away from the law, until all be fulfilled." Jesus stressed that, in no way, will any part of the Old Testament law pass away, not one jot (dotting of the “i”) or one tittle (crossing if the “t”), no part of God's written law in the Old Testament will pass away until two things happen. One, until heaven and earth pass; and two, until all prophesy is fulfilled (Luke 24:44). Jesus did not come to abolish the Old Testament law…period! Now, why would Jesus begin his sermon by teaching God's (Old Testament) Law, and then pause in the middle of his sermon to say that none of the Old Testament law would pass away, and then a few minutes later, tell everybody how the Old Testament laws have passed away, and are replaced with new laws? The answer is, he wouldn't, and he didn't. Therefore, Jesus was telling his audience, "No matter what you hear from my mouth, do not interpret what I am saying as meaning the written law of God is passing away. Because I am not replacing God's Law!" Remember this. Jesus knew that there would be people who would be mis-interpreting his teachings as saying he was abolishing God's Law, or that some parts of it were no longer binding, or were being changed, but Jesus warned his listeners that this would be a false interpretation. Remember the context. In Matthew 5, verses 17-18, Jesus said he was not changing the Old Testament law, and in verse 19 He stresses to keep God's Commandments, and in verse 20 He accuses the scribes and Pharisees of being self righteous. Now, verses 21 through 48 will be addressed, because many people believe Jesus was changing the Old Testament written laws in these passages! Let us look at them briefly. Matthew 5:21-22, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill…But I say unto you…" Matthew 5:27-28, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you…" Matthew 5:31-32, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you…" Matthew 5:33-34, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you…" Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you…" Matthew 5:43-44, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you…" First of all, let's get one thing clear. Jesus was not quoting from the written law of the Old Testament in these verses! Let me repeat that. Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament laws in these passages! Even the choice of words used by Christ indicates that He was addressing a confusion, or a distortion, that was commonplace. Christ used this same “Ye have heard that it hath been said,” or “it hath been said.” figure of speech to straighten out misunderstandings or falsehoods being taught by the religious leaders of the time. In other words, Jesus was dealing with hearsay statements. Contrast this to Christ's use of the phrase "It is written" or "The Scripture saith" when He was appealing to the Scriptures for authority (for example, see Matthew 4 where on three occasions during His temptation by the devil, Christ answered each one of the devil's lies or misquotes from Scripture with the words: "it is written"). You may ask, “But the laws such as 'an eye for an eye' are found in the Old Testament. If Jesus was not quoting from the Old Testament, then what was he quoting from?” Yes, most of the above laws in verses 21 through 48 are found in God's Law. But even though Jesus may have been referring to God's Law, Jesus was not quoting from God's Law. Jesus was quoting from man's law! Man's laws always have scriptural truths in them; but when someone quotes these truths in man's laws, even though they have reference to God's Law in scripture, they are still being quoted from man's law itself. In Jesus' case, the Pharisees and Sadducees took God's Law, from the Old Testament, and applied it to situations that God never intended. They had changed God's Laws. They placed their own commandments and traditions above the Word of God (Mark 7:7-9). Jesus was correcting the laws that the people have “heard” from their religious leaders, and explained these laws as God intended them to be. For example, Jesus said: Matthew 5:43-44, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” Was Jesus teaching something new? God's law says, “Thou shalt love thy neighbour” (Leviticus 19:18), but God's law does not say, “hate thine enemy.” The Pharisees were taking God's Law out of context, and added to it, and changed it to mean that we are to hate our enemies, as if the one were a legitimate inference from the other. This is what the people heard from man, but it is not what they read in scripture. However, when Jesus taught we are to love our enemy, Jesus was quoting from the Old Testament (Exodus 23:4-5, Deuteronomy 23:7, Proverbs 24:17-18, Proverbs 25:21-22). He taught nothing new! Another example is when Jesus said: Matthew 5:21-22, "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill…But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother…" Was Jesus teaching something new? God's law says, “thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13), but it certainly does not teach to hate your brother. The Pharisees were teaching it was okay to hate (be angry at) your brothers. But what does the Old Testament say? Leviticus 19:17, "Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him." Again, Jesus taught nothing new! He was quoting from scripture! He was correcting them with Old Testament scripture. Jesus was explaining the spiritual meaning of Old Testament laws, using the Old Testament itself! The spiritual meaning in this case would be that before one can commit murder, one must first be angry and hate the one he wants to murder. Another example is when Jesus said: Matthew 5:33-35, "Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King." Did Jesus teach something new? It was not the intention of Jesus to repeal or abolish this law. God's Law allowed, and in some instances required, the administration of an oath made unto the Lord (Exodus 22:11, Numbers 5:19). But the Jews, looking upon this law, construed it as giving them exemption from the binding effect of all other oaths. According to their construction, no oath was binding in which the name of God did not directly occur. They therefore coined many other oaths to suit their purposes, which would add weight to their statements or promises, which, however, would not leave them guilty of being forsworn if they spoke untruthfully. But Jesus showed that all oaths were ultimately referable to God, and that those who made them would be forsworn if they did not keep them. To prevent this evil practice of loose swearing Jesus lays down the prohibition, "Swear not at all." Christ does not forbid judicial oaths in this prohibition. This conclusion is also reached when we interpret the prohibition in the light of authoritative examples; for we find that God swore by himself (Genesis 22:16-17; Hebrews 6:13; 7:21); Jesus answered under oath before the Sanhedrin (Matthew 26:63); Paul also made an oath to the Corinthian church (2 Corinthians 1:23) and made solemn appeals to God (Romans 1:9, Galatians 1:20, Philippians 1:8; 1 Corinthians 15:31, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, Revelation 10:5-6). Therefore, judicial oaths, and oaths taken in the name of God on occasions of solemn religious importance, are not included in the prohibition. But as these are the only exceptions found in Scriptures, we conclude that all other oaths are forbidden. Looking at the details of the paragraph, we find that oaths "by heaven...by the earth...by Jerusalem...and by thy head" are utterly meaningless save as they have reference to God. Jesus says elsewhere that all who swear at all, do in fact swear by God, or the oath is good for nothing (Matthew 23:22). To swear by an altar, a gift, or a temple, is of no force, unless it be meant to appeal to God himself. The essential thing in an oath is calling God to witness our sincerity. If a real oath is taken, therefore, God is appealed to. If not, it is foolish and wicked to swear by anything else. Another example is when Jesus said: Matthew 5:31-32, "It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery:" Did Jesus teach something new? The Pharisees are the ones who said that it was "...lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause" (Matthew 19:3), And Jesus was correcting them by saying, in Matthew 19:8, "...but from the beginning it was not so.” Jesus was simply teaching the same law that was from the beginning! Jesus taught nothing new! Another example is when Jesus said: Matthew 5:38-39, "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you…" Did Jesus teach something new? Jesus was not saying that the Old Testament law on an eye for an eye has now passed away! Because a few minutes earlier he had just stated that none of the Old Testament law would pass away (Matthew 5:17-18), and Jesus would not contradict himself. So, what was Jesus teaching in this passage? The reference to "an eye for an eye" is found in Exodus 21:24-25, which deals with how the magistrate must deal with a crime. Namely, the punishment must fit the crime. The religious leaders of Christ's day had twisted a passage that applied to the magistrates and misused it as a principle of personal revenge. Christ is clearing up a confusion that had led people to think that conduct proper for the magistrates—that is, taking vengeance—was also proper for an individual. This law of retribution was designed to take vengeance out of the hands of personal revenge and commit it to the magistrate. The Pharisees and their followers misused this law as a principle of personal revenge, so that they could give "tit for tat" to those who harmed them, which is contrary to the injunctions of the Old Testament itself (Proverbs 20:22; 24:29). A law that was meant to be a guide to judges rendering judicial decisions and handing down sentences was never meant to be a rule of our personal relationships. The function of magistrates is to administer the vengeance of God upon evil doers (Romans 13:4), but not so with individuals. Our duty is to love our neighbor as the Lord Jesus has instructed us. Jesus was teaching from the Old Testament, which specifically stated that if evil is done to us, we are not to do to him as he did to us! Proverbs 24:29, "Say not, I will do so to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his work." The reason is because this would be personal revenge. Instead, the duty of rendering to man his evil work is the duty of the majistrates. Jesus taught nothing new. Remember, even though such precepts were never before expressed with such breadth, precision, and sharpness, Jesus is only the Interpreter of the Law that has been in force from the beginning. His one object here was to contrast the perversions of the law with the true sense of it. Now, with this scriptural truth in mind, that Jesus did not teach anything new, let's go to the point of this article, and examine what Jesus taught in Matthew 5:27-28. Many believe that Jesus was laying down a brand new law…that to lust after all women is now adultery, whereas before, only the physical act was considered adultery. But is this what Jesus was teaching? |