A lot of Christians, especially those who want to go into
the ministry, want to learn some Greek so that they can study the New Testament
in its original language. But that still
isn’t the best reason for learning the language.
Most of the Bible was written in Hebrew, a very different
language from Greek. As a result, it is
hard to make verbal connections between the two parts.
However, the Hebrew part, the Old Testament, was translated
into Greek about 300 years before the time of Christ, and that Greek Old
Testament was the Bible used most often by the New Testament writers. The Old Testament is alluded to around 4500
times in the New Testament, and it is by using the Greek Old Testament that you
can clearly see the connections between the two Testaments.
The passage quoted above is a good example.
Comparing the Greek texts of both Testaments, this passage
is a clear reference to the Ten Commandments in the Old Testament, the one
about not coveting your neighbor’s wife.
The Greek word translated as ‘lust’ is the same word that the Bible uses
to express coveting. ‘Lust’ is a
negative word, suggesting an excessive or wrongful desire, perhaps most often
associated with sex. The Greek and
Hebrew words are neutral, the contexts defining the moral value of the act,
but, as I said, this word is consistently translated as ‘covet’ throughout the
Greek Old and New Testaments. Any
translation that translates it using words like lust or sex is interpreting and
not strictly translating. The word
simply means desire. But often in the
Bible the sense is coveting.[1]
This word is used for
coveting a man’s house, his servants, his animals, and anything that he has,
including his wife.
The Greek word for ‘woman’ is the same word for ‘wife.’ And personal pronouns are often assumed
rather than expressed.
So a better translation would be something like: everyone
who looks at another man’s wife and covets her has already committed adultery
in his heart.
Why would Jesus add here the idea of looking to the idea of
coveting? In a previous article, we
looked at a rich young ruler who had approached Jesus about gaining eternal
life. Coveting was an issue with the
man, but Jesus used the expression of defrauding instead of coveting, because the
man didn’t think he was coveting, so Jesus explicitly spelled it out for him. Apparently coveting is not always that easy
to recognize. Here Jesus is noting that
coveting can occur without any more physical action than looking.
Coveting is not merely enjoying the experience of the object
in question but the wanting of something that belongs to someone else.
This is a very different understanding of the verse than it
is commonly understood. Are there any
other reasons to support this translation over the common one? The key here is the word ‘adultery,’ which
only speaks of a relationship between a married person and someone who is not
the spouse. There is a very common Greek
word for fornication, which would express any kind of improper or wrong sexual
union, and both words are used together in Jesus’ teaching about divorce a few
verses further on. So the words are not
used indiscriminately or interchangeably.
So can a 14 year old boy thinking about his classmate at
school be committing adultery? No.
When a man meets the love of his life and dwells on the
thought of her day and night, is he committing adultery? No. As
this verse is commonly understood, the courtship process itself would be a sinful
process. We would be better off having arranged marriages where we don’t meet
the future spouse until the wedding.
The question will be asked at this point: If coveting can
occur without any outward action beyond looking, wouldn’t that suggest or mean
that sexual thoughts not focused on one’s spouse are sinful, just as the
traditional understanding of this verse has been understood.
If that was the point that
`Jesus was trying to convey, He would not
have called it adultery, but fornication. And He would not have called something
coveting that applied to all women, because an unmarried woman was not seen as
belonging to someone else. And,
lastly, if sexual thoughts were the real intent of Jesus’ words here, calling
it adultery would suggest that knowing the marital status of the person
involved is relevant, whereas in most cases it isn’t even known.
When you read the words of Jesus for a while, you sense that
He clearly says what He means. I I think
His meaning is clear here, and He is not addressing those questions that
preoccupy many Christian men today.
[1]
Exodus 20:17 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall
not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his
ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
wÜoD:ba(ºw !èe("r te$Ø") dîom:xat-)×ol !Õe("r tyØ"B dÙom:xat )Ûol 20.17
p ;!×e("r:l rÛe$A) lÙokºw wêoromAxáw wØorO$ºw üOtfmA)áw
20.17 ou)k e)piqumh/seij th\n gunaiÍka tou= plhsi¿on sou. ou)k e)piqumh/seij th\n oi¹ki¿an tou= plhsi¿on sou ouÃte to\n a)gro\n au)tou= ouÃte to\n paiÍda au)tou= ouÃte th\n paidi¿skhn au)tou= ouÃte tou= boo\j au)tou= ouÃte tou= u(pozugi¿ou au)tou= ouÃte panto\j kth/nouj au)tou= ouÃte oÀsa t%½ plhsi¿on sou/ e)stin.
wÜoD:ba(ºw !èe("r te$Ø") dîom:xat-)×ol !Õe("r tyØ"B dÙom:xat )Ûol 20.17
p ;!×e("r:l rÛe$A) lÙokºw wêoromAxáw wØorO$ºw üOtfmA)áw
20.17 ou)k e)piqumh/seij th\n gunaiÍka tou= plhsi¿on sou. ou)k e)piqumh/seij th\n oi¹ki¿an tou= plhsi¿on sou ouÃte to\n a)gro\n au)tou= ouÃte to\n paiÍda au)tou= ouÃte th\n paidi¿skhn au)tou= ouÃte tou= boo\j au)tou= ouÃte tou= u(pozugi¿ou au)tou= ouÃte panto\j kth/nouj au)tou= ouÃte oÀsa t%½ plhsi¿on sou/ e)stin.
No comments:
Post a Comment