Can there be ADULTERY without sexual intercourse?

[Douglas Hendrickson]

The two ultimately become one flesh in making a baby, not having intercourse.

Okay, according to your interpretation, from the two comes one.
ONE CHILD IS ALL THERE SHOULD EVER BE (FROM THE TWO).

(It certainly does not say "the two become many flesh"!)

 

[RDKirk]

I IMAGINE it might work IN CHURCH.

Scripture 5 times admonishes us to "Greet ye one another with a holy kiss," one time it reads: "KISS OF LOVE."

ACTUAL LOVING (touching) in church, imagine that!

Admonitions (PREACHING) would be to avoid any conditions where "lusting for" (adultery) could be carried out - no being together alone with someone other than one's spouse.

If you're going to make a pretense of scholarship, at the very least check a Strong's concordance. In all those instances of "kiss of love" or "kiss of peace," the Greek indicates phileo (brotherly affection) or agape, fully defined by Paul as an ethereal, pure, non-erotic love.

 

[RDKirk]

That's fine. But suppose a guy and a gal each married to someone else sat side by side IN A PEW and were kissing for a total of fifteen minutes during the sermon. Would that be ADULTERY? (No sexual intercourse involved, only kissing.)

The point being to actually show, express, feel, and celebrate LOVE.

Is God against such loving in church?

Also consider the situation where they are both single.
And the case of the young - I am of the mind that what one prescribes for teenage dating is "as much kissing and hugging as you want, but NOTHING ELSE."
What do you think?

You appear to be attempting to conflate all possible definitions of "love" into meaning only eroticism--which is a fairly frequent and typical stunt people try to pull on scripture and Jesus. But the Greek of the New Testament is more precise than that. There are several Greek words indicating specific kinds of affection that get lumped into the single word "love" in English.

Eros--which is the sexually based emotion you've been concentrated on through this entire thread--is not in the New Testament a single time. Not once. What we do find in the New Testament are phileo (brotherly love) and agape (spiritual love). Agape is by far the more used word. In fact, agape appears more time in the New Testament than it appears in all the rest of ancient Greek literature we have put together. Agape is otherwise found so seldom that secular Greek scholars must depend on Paul's definition (although I suspect it was used so seldom even back then that Paul might have selected it for its obscurity and put a Holy Spirit spin on the meaning).

Bottom line: Forget your attempts to twist New Testament "love" into eroticism. The Greek absolutely excludes it.

 

[RDKirk]

May I ask how old you are?
The two ultimately become one flesh in making a baby, not having intercourse. A person just gratifying sexual desires is not becoming "one flesh" whether inside or outside marriage, at least not in any unified sense of the meaning behind God's Words about two becoming husband and wife.
Kissing on the lips or cheek as a greeting is no different than a hand shake unless one of the parties as desires towards the other person. Am unaware of any greeting custom where such a gesture involves tongue or open mouths or passion. In fact where the gesture is custom, it is even done between two people that despise each other- just as handshakes are. I do not think offering a holy kiss gives one grounds to lingering contact with a member of the opposite sex. If we are talking about an instance one's spouse witnessed and objected to - then I suggest one does not do that again regardless of what your intention was and because there was objection it probably was not a "holy kiss".

I agree with your overall point, but I think you're on shaky ground with the portion I've bolded.

Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” -- 1 Corinthians 6

 

[Douglas Hendrickson]

If you're going to make a pretense of scholarship, at the very least check a Strong's concordance. In all those instances of "kiss of love" or "kiss of peace," the Greek indicates phileo (brotherly affection) or agape, fully defined by Paul as an ethereal, pure, non-erotic love.

You might check the Scriptures (with a concordance perhaps) - if you are going to make a pretense of scholarship.
I don't think you'll find ANY instances of "kiss of peace" and only one (I Peter 5:14) "kiss of love" (or "charity").

As to "agape" being fully defined by Paul in the manner you indicate, of course it is not once defined in that way. Perhaps you think overall that is the definition he gives to it, but I think that is your construction. Just as you say Paul put a Holy Spirit spin on it (or might have, I am not quite sure which you are saying), so too he might have had a true understanding of spirituality being a very sexual thing. An understanding few Christians seem to have much noticed.

If he had that understanding, anything along those lines, there may be good reasons why he wanted that to remain fairly hidden. If one's soul is one's genitals (for instance), the use of the term "soul" instead may be because the more obvious (though clinical) term would be too contentious and the truly spiritually minded have to live with using the rather ill-defined, ostensibly ill defined (like "agape") term "soul" to talk about what they really want to talk about. I suspect there were cults of the time or before (I do not know for sure) who did use "eros" and hence to distance himself from them and other misunderstandings Paul did not use that term even once.

I am talking about a real kiss, and I would suggest so too is the Bible. The fact of the repetition suggests that, that it is not merely something PERFUNCTORY that one is being ADMONISHED to do. So it IS TOUCHING, and hence I think the claim is appropriate that it goes in the direction of loving. NOT SOMETHING ETHEREAL, but real for one's soul and mind and heart.
Actually, seems to me, little or nothing of the LOVE not only recommended but preached mightily in favor of in Scripture is ethereal.

"Pure" is another term one could discuss in relation to love; it would seem to be closely associated with "holy" which I would like to understand better. What IS a holy kiss, that is, what would make a real kiss holy?

 

[David4223]

MOD HAT ON

This thread is being moved from Controversial Theology to General Theology as staff feels it more closely fits in with that forum.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Tree of Life]

How does one know for sure that one is not transgressing the important Commandment against adultery? <Staff Edit>
But what are we to make of Matthew 5:28? (Jesus said): "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

How is "lust" to be defined here? Surely one would have to actually WANT TO, nay, INTEND TO commit actual adultery for the "lust" to even begin to rise to the level of the actual act? (In parallel with the warning just prior that hating one's brother may lead to murder, so one should avoid it.)
One might do a lot of kissing and touching without any such intent - not only not to ever transgress the Commandment but to avoid any concerns about pregnancy and diseases.
And one could certainly "play around" without coveting, without wanting to make another person's spouse one's own.

This is exactly the kind of casuistry and over-literal interpretation of Scripture that Jesus condemned. The Pharisees believed that one violated the adultery command only when intercourse had occurred. Jesus correctly interprets the command by making it an issue of the heart.

The greek literally reads: "whoever is continuing to look upon a woman in order to be moved with covetousness has by that time committed adultery with her in his heart." The verb "to look" is present, active, participle which would mean ongoing, continuous action. The word translated "lustful intent" is epithumesai which literally means "covet". So you've violated the adultery command as soon as you've coveted another man's wife or a woman who is not your wife.

Given, simply kissing another woman may not constitute adultery in the fullest sense. But, according to Jesus, the adultery command was not meant to be limited to sexual intercourse alone. Lustful looking, thinking, kissing, etc all violate the command because the command was intended to protect marriage - all of these things harm marriage and so violate the command. So the question is not: "what constitutes adultery?" but "what violates this command?"

 

[Goatee]

I'm trying to remember all the accidental kissing in passings I have experienced and I'm coming up with blanks.

Me too!

 

[Goatee]

Think of someone in a sexual manner other than your wife and its adultery. Adultery of the mind and soul. Simples. This i live with myself after having a physical adultery! It is sin. Filth of which i am surely guilty! A massive sin of which i for one get tangled up in no matter how hard i try to break free from it!

 

[Free at Calvary]

Adultery under the law is sex with a married man or woman, or sex with a divorced man or woman. It's a deed and not a thought.

When King David lusted after a woman he saw taking a bath, he did not repent until he moved her husband out of the way, and laid with the woman.

But what did King David pray? "Create in me a clean heart O God". He had exercised his heart in an adulterous affair. If he had not committed the deed, iniquity would still be in his heart; he would still be unclean.

Lawyers/hypocrites look for loop holes and technicalities to get around the law, but Jesus made sure to squash it. Kissing and fondling without sexual activity is still of iniquity, and we cannot get around it.

My advice to the born again is to walk after the Spirit; purify your hearts and cleanse your hands.

 

[Goatee]

Adultery under the law is sex with a married man or woman, or sex with a divorced man or woman. It's a deed and not a thought.

When King David lusted after a woman he saw taking a bath, he did not repent until he moved her husband out of the way, and laid with the woman.

But what did King David pray? "Create in me a clean heart O God". He had exercised his heart in an adulterous affair. If he had not committed the deed, iniquity would still be in his heart; he would still be unclean.

Lawyers/hypocrites look for loop holes and technicalities to get around the law, but Jesus made sure to squash it. Kissing and fondling without sexual activity is still of iniquity, and we cannot get around it.

My advice to the born again is to walk after the Spirit; purify your hearts and cleanse your hands.

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

[Free at Calvary]

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

You cannot transgress the law with a thought, but your heart can still condemn you.

 

[RDKirk]

Given, simply kissing another woman may not constitute adultery in the fullest sense. But, according to Jesus, the adultery command was not meant to be limited to sexual intercourse alone. Lustful looking, thinking, kissing, etc all violate the command because the command was intended to protect marriage - all of these things harm marriage and so violate the command. So the question is not: "what constitutes adultery?" but "what violates this command?"

I asked this question before, but is there a presumption in this thread that in the mind of Christ, the replacement of the affection one should have for a spouse with affection for someone else is not adultery, even if there is no sexual activity involved? If my wife stops loving me and starts dating another man behind my back, even if they don't have sex...that's not adultery? Or just likes going out on dates with lots of different men? What, then, is that? Is that spiritually okay?

 

[Tree of Life]

I asked this question before, but is there a presumption in this thread that in the mind of Christ, the replacement of the affection one should have for a spouse with affection for someone else is not adultery, even if there is no sexual activity involved? If my wife stops loving me and starts dating another man behind my back, even if they don't have sex...that's not adultery? Or just likes going out on dates with lots of different men? What, then, is that? Is that spiritually okay?

It seems that the OP has this presumption. But I think that Jesus is saying that whatever harms the marriage bond is sinful and violates God's Law. So an emotional relationship that supplants your relationship with your spouse, even if no sexual encounters are involved, is a violation of the adultery command because it harms marriage.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Matthew 5:27-28
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

That's what I was going to say. Adultery happens with the heart and mind. It doesn't have to involve the body at all. Maybe "lust in the heart" wouldn't hold up in a court of law during a divorce proceeding, but isn't God's way more important than the world's way?

The other part of this question is non-sexual touching. If you hug or kiss somebody else, of either sex, the same way you would hug or kiss your mother or your brother (assuming everybody is mentally healthy and nothing abnormal is going on here) then I don't see a problem. If I saw my husband hugging a woman from our church, or a female co-worker, or anyone else, I would assume it wasn't meant in THAT way, and I wouldn't think anything improper was happening. Nor would he, if it were me hugging another man. If we had any question of "who was that," we'd simply ask.

 

[daveed]

How does one know for sure that one is not transgressing the important Commandment against adultery?

lust = strong desire

Any action (hugging, greeting, greeting with a kiss, touching, looking), or any thought (enjoying the view of another person's body, pornography, etc) that you willfully participate in, and that causes sexual arousal to you, is traitorous and damaging to the marriage covenant and should be considered adultery—not in a legal sense—but in a biblical sense according to Matthew 5:28.

 

[stuart lawrence]

How does one know for sure that one is not transgressing the important Commandment against adultery? <Staff Edit>

But what are we to make of Matthew 5:28? (Jesus said): "whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

How is "lust" to be defined here? Surely one would have to actually WANT TO, nay, INTEND TO commit actual adultery for the "lust" to even begin to rise to the level of the actual act? (In parallel with the warning just prior that hating one's brother may lead to murder, so one should avoid it.)
One might do a lot of kissing and touching without any such intent - not only not to ever transgress the Commandment but to avoid any concerns about pregnancy and diseases.
And one could certainly "play around" without coveting, without wanting to make another person's spouse one's own.

So if I kiss her, say for 15 minutes, have I committed adultery? What if for half a minute? Suppose I accidentally kissed her in passing?
Certainly not all "sexual activities" (with someone married to another spouse) would be ADULTERY ?

But it would be coveting someone who belonged to another. So you break the tenth commandment! How many men would spend time kissing another mans wife without having any form of lust rise up in them? Seems to me you may be trying to justify breaking commandments

 

[stuart lawrence]

Question is, and someone might call it "casuistry," what exactly has to happen for there to be adultery? What constitutes the "lust" that must be (is) prohibited, what precisely are the (sorts of) DESIRES that must be avoided?
Isn't it possible for someone to desire ONLY to kiss someone who happens to be married to someone else (in contrast to desiring to kiss only that someone) with absolutely no desire to be married to the person for instance, and would such a desire be correctly forbidden in all cases?

Is "anything sexual" (like prolonged passionate kissing) to be reserved only for the marriage bed? And is that only because some presume or guess or somehow come up with the idea it would be detrimental to marriage? Without ever trying it?

Would you find nothing wrong with being married to someone who spent time passionately kissing another man?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Would you find nothing wrong with being married to someone who spent time passionately kissing another man?

I've even heard of marriages where swapping around sexually was the way they did things. Doesn't make it right. Ultimately, families are supposed to be safe, stable, consistent places to raise children. Families that stay safe and stable, even without children, are supporting the families that do have children.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

Would you find nothing wrong with being married to someone who spent time passionately kissing another man?

The physical action isn’t what makes it adultery. The thoughts and feelings are. "Passionately" is the key word here. "Spent time" is also a big clue that something unwholesome is going on. Let's say you're going home for a vacation. Your mother meets you at the airport, and you kiss her. That's not normally going to be a long, involved process. Nor would there normally be any sexual desire. That's why the affection is harmless. Otherwise, something is very wrong somewhere. If you hug and kiss your spiritual family the same way you would hug and kiss your biological family, I don't see the problem. If there is a difference between the two, then to me, that's a red flag.


Faithfulness isn't about "let's see how close to the edge of the cliff we can come without falling over." It's about "let's just stay away from that cliff." Automatic thoughts are going to happen. If someone was actually starting to turn me on, I'd avoid that person rather than think about what I could get away with before it's actually called adultery. The moment lingering sexual thoughts or feelings come in, whether or not there has ever been any touch at all, I'd end a friendship before I would risk ruining a marriage. For a chance encounter with a stranger in the crowd that I think is attractive, I have consciously chosen to stop looking at that person and focus on my husband. I suppose I could have kept on feasting my eyes, and told myself it was OK because I wasn't actually having sex with somebody other than my husband, but I didn't even want to go down that road.