Pages

Saturday, December 04, 2010

Lusting in your heart


Thumbing through D. A. Carson’s revised commentary on Matthew, I ran across this interpretation of the famous verse in 5:28:

Klaus Haacker (“Der Rechtsatz Jesu zum Thema Ehebruch,” BZ 21 [1977]: 113-16) has convincingly argued that the second auten (“[committed adultery] with her”) is contrary to the common interpretation of this verse. In Greek it is unnecessary, especially if the sin is entirely the man’s. But it is explainable if pros to epithymesai auten, commonly understood to mean “with a view to lusting for her,” is translated “so as to get her to lust” The evidence for this interpretation is strong (see Notes). The man is therefore looking at the woman with a view to enticing her to lust.
 
If Haacker (see above) is right in his contention that the second auten is unnecessary on the customary reading of this verse, the problem is resolved if the first auten within the expression pros to epithymesai auten functions as the accusative of reference (i.e., the quasisubject) of the infinite (as in the equivalent construction in Lk 18:1) to generate the translation “so that she lusts,” 184-85.

If the alternative rendering (“get her to lust after him”) is correct, then I take this to mean that what 5:28 really forbids is seduction, viz. a man seducing a woman. As such, the prohibition would presumably apply to both premarital and extramarital sex–since OT law condemned each form of immorality, although adultery was the graver offense. 

38 comments:

  1. Do you think that kissing before marriage is illicit?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi Steve,

    Interesting argument. I have a hard time thinking this is accurate, but it would be helpful to see Haacker's note to understand where he is coming from. Is that something you have access to?

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  3. I haven't read the article that Carson cites.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why do you have a hard time thinking this is accurate?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Being male, naturally I read it from a man's point of view.

    Having had several experiences over the years, I have been tempered to realize that lust is a generic problem and men sometimes inadvertently stumble the opposite sex or the same sex into lust!

    We need to be ever so vigilant and clean and close to the Word of the Lord, being led of the Spirit of Grace and Mercy and be ready to assist whichever sex is stumbled by our being with them publicly or privately, when we are able.

    Most likely, though, it will be the work of sanctification done by the power of the Holy Spirit in the lustful to bring them to confess and forsake their sin.

    Of a number of incidents I could cite, I will cite one. I had an experience with a woman a number of years ago where it was my fault for bringing about the stumbling of her to think and act inappropriately with me. Stupid me.

    I am grateful to the Lord for His mercies and grace, that, even though my soul was arguing with Him about what happened, when I settled my emotions down so I could be instructed, I was and it became clear that lust is of the flesh whether it is the flesh of a man or a woman, with one or both parties.

    These verses comfort me even more:

    1Co 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.
    1Co 10:32 Give no offense to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God,
    1Co 10:33 just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved.

    Php 2:1 So if there is any encouragement in Christ, any comfort from love, any participation in the Spirit, any affection and sympathy,
    Php 2:2 complete my joy by being of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.
    Php 2:3 Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves.
    Php 2:4 Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others.


    Heb 12:14 Strive for peace with everyone, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.
    Heb 12:15 See to it that no one fails to obtain the grace of God; that no "root of bitterness" springs up and causes trouble, and by it many become defiled;
    Heb 12:16 that no one is sexually immoral or unholy like Esau, who sold his birthright for a single meal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. natamllc, I'm not sure inadverantly causing someone else to stumble counts as a sin in any way. Joseph was not guilty of inciting Potiphar's wife to lust. Dinah was not to blame for her rapist choosing to rape her. Tamar was not guilty of inciting Amnon to rape her by anything she did. If Jesus' words are warnings about looking on someone to seduce them I would say that not only is that argument solid it also has the advantage of being an argument that can connect to well-known narratives in Israelite history.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Wenatchee the Hatchet

    I agree with you. People play the issue of causing someone else to sin as a one-sided blame game. The issue of lust always brings out the worst of such issues out of people, and they need to recognize that while mutual warnings are appropriate from both sexes, at that point, they need to realize that such decisions as what movies they watch and how they dress is a matter of personal conscience, and they need to trust those they warn (whom they believe to be Christians) are doing what they think is right and not to demonize them for not perhaps sharing our own standards.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve-just out of curiosity, how would you reconcile your comment about kissing with the passage about treating a sister with absolute purity? I.e. You wouldn't kiss your sister romantically....

    Second- you've said previously that the Philippians verse about "whatever is good, whatever is pure" is often misapplied.
    Could you help me grasp how I could answer someone who attempts to undermine my watching of violent movies (for example) by quoting that verse?

    Many thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  9. "No I don't."

    What, to your way of thinking, would qualify as seduction?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ROHAN SAID:

    "Steve-just out of curiosity, how would you reconcile your comment about kissing with the passage about treating a sister with absolute purity? I.e. You wouldn't kiss your sister romantically...."

    i) You're confusing metaphorical sisters (i.e. female Christians) with biological sisters.

    ii) If you're alluding to 1 Tim 5:2, that's not a general injunction about relations between the sexes. Rather, Paul is giving Timothy tips on how to pastor the church that Paul put in his charge.

    That's not intended, say, to forbid a boy who attends church from dating a girl who attends church. You're taking the verse way out of context.

    ReplyDelete
  11. wondering said...

    "What, to your way of thinking, would qualify as seduction?"

    I think that's self-explanatory.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rohan said...

    "Second- you've said previously that the Philippians verse about 'whatever is good, whatever is pure' is often misapplied.
    Could you help me grasp how I could answer someone who attempts to undermine my watching of violent movies (for example) by quoting that verse?"

    The Bible is full of violent history and imagery, so violent content is not, of itself, a reason to avoid certain films.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Wenatchee the Hatchet

    Your point is well taken. Thanks for the comment.

    ReplyDelete
  14. your welcome natamllc. When I read your comment I was concerned that you might have been kicking yourself and assuming a burden of guilt for causing someone to stumble that ultimately wasn't yours. You should not feel that you are guilty of sin because someone decided to lust because of something you unknowingly did.

    This subject of lust and sexual desire may be one where, as wrong as unbelievers generally are on the ethics, they may have instructive criticism to give evangelicals. The most salient critique, in my experience, is pointing out that things like side hugs seem to presuppose that many forms of physical affection are so inherently sexualized that men and women can't even hug each other. Siblings do this all the time and it is not considered sexualized.

    My sister, who has been married 14 years, once said that one of the problems Christians can create for themselves in maintaining purity is identifying hugging and kissing as so innately sexual they don't let themselves experience physical affection in a familial or friendly way. This means that when they DO end up in a dating relationship they are so starved for physical affection due to their over-sexualizing all physical expressions of love that they are virtually doomed to failure on sexual purity. If I understand Steve correctly it seems he's working from a similar perspective to what my sister explained. It also seems that those who disagree with his views on kissing or his generosity toward this take on Jesus' teaching seem to come from a position of assuming that all physical affection between sexes must be inherently sexualized.
    Never hugging or kissing anyone of the opposite sex seems to be going overboard since in Song of Songs the woman explains that a brother and sister could be very affectionate in public and no one would disapprove. But as it can happen in some evangelical churches assumptions about physical affection of any kind can lead to a case where my sister and I were singing in a church choir and several people asked if we were dating. :(

    ReplyDelete
  15. I agree with Wenatchee's observations.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Steve,

    Why do you have a hard time thinking this is accurate?

    Well it would certainly mean a whole lot of people through church history have fundimentally misunderstood the passage. It can happen, but it's unlikley.

    I am sure the porn industry likes this interpretation. Although Job 31 also indicates that looking at a woman to lust after her is wrong, it's a lot less clear than Matt 5:28 and more likely to be overlooked or cast asside.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  17. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "Well it would certainly mean a whole lot of people through church history have fundimentally misunderstood the passage. It can happen, but it's unlikley."

    How is that unlikely? Isn't tradition self-reinforcing?

    And it's not as though most folks throughout church history were conversant with Greek syntax.

    "I am sure the porn industry likes this interpretation."

    How is that relevant to the syntactical question?

    "Although Job 31 also indicates that looking at a woman to lust after her is wrong..."

    Is that what it indicates?

    i) That's not a divine command. That's an autobiographical statement by Job.

    ii) Job is presumably speaking from the viewpoint of a married man.

    Do you think single Christian men are obligated to avert their eyes whenever they happen to see an eligible woman?

    iii) What about a longing look at your wife or fiancée?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Steve,

    Isn't tradition self-reinforcing?

    True, but still...

    And it's not as though most folks throughout church history were conversant with Greek syntax.

    Yes, but you will find the 'traditional view' among the ECF's, some of whom were native speakers.

    Do you think single Christian men are obligated to avert their eyes whenever they happen to see an eligible woman?

    No, the passage talks why people look, not just looking.

    iii) What about a longing look at your wife or fiancée?

    I view adultrey as extramarital sex. So a wife is fine. Wanting to have sex with your fiancee after you get married I suppose is probably OK, but lusting to have sex with her while she is your fiancee would not be.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  19. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "True, but still..."

    But still...what?

    "Yes, but you will find the 'traditional view' among the ECF's, some of whom were native speakers."

    i) So you've gone from "a whole lot of people through church history" to a few Greek Fathers.

    ii) Also, let's not forget the hyperspiritual value placed on monastic piety, which deeply colors patristic (as well as medieval) exegesis.

    "No, the passage talks why people look, not just looking."

    All Job 31:1 actually says is "I laid an injunction on my eyes. How then could I even look upon a young woman?" (from the rendering in Clines' commentary on Job 21-37).

    Were you referring to another verse?

    "I view adultrey as extramarital sex. So a wife is fine. Wanting to have sex with your fiancee after you get married I suppose is probably OK..."

    You "suppose" it's "probably OK" to want to have sex with your newlywed?

    "...but lusting to have sex with her while she is your fiancee would not be."

    Isn't wanting to have sex with her a major motivation for getting married in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  20. This discussion has gotten to what I have found most confounding about how Christians discuss sexual desire. I have heard Christians say that any sexual desire or arousal that is not for your spouse is lust. Well, numerous problems accrue to this position as a matter of practical application.

    The first is simply that sexual arousal is not always voluntary. Rape victims have reported feeling sexual pleasure during the violation that further compounds their shame over what was done to them. That is as involuntary a sexual response as is possible. Some biologists have hypothesized that female sexual response to such an act might be a survival mechanism to prevent more serious physical injury if the body did not take measures to protect itself. That is, I grant, a completely secular explanation for what has been reported but it is pertinent to this discussion. Augustine noted that sexual content in dreams cannot be controlled and should not be held against the Christian who has dreams of sexual acts.

    But the most obvious puzzle is that when a Christian asserts that sexual desire for anyone other than one's spouse is adultery that means that experiencing sexual desire for once's betrothed qualifies as adultery until the marriage takes place. How on earth can we square this kind of view of sexual desire with Paul's bluntly pragmatic counsel to the Corinthians that because of the temptation to sexual immorality everyone should have a spouse and have sex regularly because it is better to marry than to burn? Why does Paul's counsel to the Corinthians prescribe marriage as the remedy for sexual temptation? Something I have wondered a lot about in contemporary Christian teaching on marriage and sexuality is that there seems to be a strong incentive to teach that sexual desire needs to be controlled first and then one is fit for marriage. There's value to that, I suppose, but why does it seeem so very different from Paul's practical advice?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Unfortunately, Dan Chapa's position leads to self-defeating legalism. By imposing such an artificial, unscriptural, and unrealistic standard on Christians, it ends up provoking sexual license in a way that Scriptural realism would not.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve,

    no disputes with me there as I also agreed.

    Wenatchee:

    How on earth can we square this kind of view of sexual desire with Paul's bluntly pragmatic counsel to the Corinthians that because of the temptation to sexual immorality everyone should have a spouse and have sex regularly because it is better to marry than to burn?

    It is quite remarkable to me also in light of another set of verses beginning with Abraham sending his most highly trusted servant to go find a wife for the Promised Land and that affair ends with this:

    Gen 24:1 Now Abraham was old, well advanced in years. And the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things.
    Gen 24:2 And Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he had, "Put your hand under my thigh,
    Gen 24:3 that I may make you swear by the LORD, the God of heaven and God of the earth, that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell,
    Gen 24:4 but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac."



    Gen 24:62 Now Isaac had returned from Beer-lahai-roi and was dwelling in the Negeb.
    Gen 24:63 And Isaac went out to meditate in the field toward evening. And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold, there were camels coming.
    Gen 24:64 And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she dismounted from the camel
    Gen 24:65 and said to the servant, "Who is that man, walking in the field to meet us?" The servant said, "It is my master." So she took her veil and covered herself.
    Gen 24:66 And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done.
    Gen 24:67 Then Isaac brought her into the tent of Sarah his mother and took Rebekah, and she became his wife, and he loved her. So Isaac was comforted after his mother's death.


    In today's way of marriages and everybody's opinion on what should happen and who one should invite and how many should be invited and why one should be obligated to attend the ceremony of two wedding souls and all the expenses both great and small, those verses there lend to a quick way of settling the event!

    ReplyDelete
  23. Steve,

    Dan Chapa's position leads to self-defeating legalism. By imposing such an artificial, unscriptural, and unrealistic standard on Christians, it ends up provoking sexual license in a way that Scriptural realism would not.


    I didn't think we had a material difference here; I thought we were just talking about one text. Do you think it's OK to look on a woman to lust after her?

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Do you think it's OK to look on a woman to lust after her?"

    What does that even mean? To look at a desirable woman, but not desire her? To stop looking? To never look at a woman who might be desirable?

    You act as if there's a single answer to that question. *What* woman? Your wife? Someone else's wife? Your girlfriend? Your fiancée?

    You evidently define "lust" as merely wanting to have sex with someone. Do you think that's avoidable? Can we not want to *feel* that way?

    Certainly there are things we can avoid, but a man not even "wanting" a woman?

    To take one example, do I think it's wrong if a single man wants to have sex with his fiancée? No.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I'm always reminded of that wonderful Luther quote in these instances, "I can't help birds from flying into my beard but I can stop them from building a nest there" (or somesuch).

    Steve is right to demand defined terms because "want" could just mean "looking forward to".

    I've always heard lusting defined as deliberately imagining yourself in a sexual scenario with another woman.

    I say deliberately because of the quote above - is it sinful if you find yourself daydreaming in a salacious scenario with another woman- and when you realise what's going on, immediately trying to purge that image from your mind?

    It seems to me that our sinful nature can manifest itself in this way....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Steve,

    In Matt 5:28 the key terms are lust and adultery. I take adultery to mean extramarital sex. I take lust as not just desire, but an inordinate desire- one that is not satisfied with its object, as in the case of Ecclesiastes 5:10: 10 ”He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver; Nor he who loves abundance, with increase. “ It’s natural to like beauty and for men to find woman attractive, and that’s OK. But if a person is unsatisfied with the beauty they see and want more, more, more they have a problem. Lust is a sin in and of itself, but to intentionally look at a woman (who isn’t your wife) to make her the object of your lust is tantamount to adultery.

    As such, (and as I stated above) I agree with you that it’s OK for a man to want to have sex with his fiancée. So where is our disagreement on the moral issue?

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  27. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "In Matt 5:28 the key terms are lust and adultery. I take adultery to mean extramarital sex."

    Adulterous lust would either involve a married party lusting after someone other than their spouse, or else an unmarried party lusting after someone's spouse.

    (It also turns on the definition of "lust".)

    That's narrower than how you previously defined your terms.

    "I take lust as not just desire, but an inordinate desire- one that is not satisfied with its object..."

    And what makes you think that's the operative definition in Mt 5:28?

    "Lust is a sin in and of itself..."

    That may be, given your definition of "lust" as "inordinate, insatiable desire," but you haven't justified that definition of the Greek word in terms of standard lexical semantics. Doesn't the word simply mean "strong desire," and in erotic settings like Mt 5:28, "strong sexual desire"?

    "...but to intentionally look at a woman (who isn’t your wife) to make her the object of your lust is tantamount to adultery. "

    That may well be, but that's not something you've exegeted from the terms of Mt 5:28.

    "As such, (and as I stated above) I agree with you that it’s OK for a man to want to have sex with his fiancée."

    That's not what you said before.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Steve,

    Me:"I take lust as not just desire, but an inordinate desire- one that is not satisfied with its object..."

    Thee: And what makes you think that's the operative definition in Mt 5:28?

    While epithymeo sometimes simply means desire it can also mean lust or covet. It's the word used for covet in Romans 7:7 and 13:9 and in the LXX in Ex 20:17, Deut 5:21, and Mic 2:2. Using your very favorite source (dictionary.com) we see that the first definition for covet is:

    to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.

    Now why take epithymeo in Mt 5:28 in the sense of lust or covet? Since the object is forbidden.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  29. Since the verb is used positively in such LXX occurrences as Gen 49:14; Deut 12:20; Pss 44:11; 118:20,40; Isa 26:9; 58:2,11 (using LXX numbering throughout), I can't see that it means wrongful or inordinate desire. Rather, it seems to have a neutral ethical import. The negative connotation derives, not from the sense of the word, but the surrounding context in certain passages.

    ReplyDelete
  30. GODISMYJUDGE SAID:

    "Using your very favorite source (dictionary.com) we see that the first definition for covet is: 'to desire wrongfully, inordinately, or without due regard for the rights of others: to covet another's property.' Now why take epithymeo in Mt 5:28 in the sense of lust or covet?"

    i) "Lust" and "covet" are not synonymous terms in English. That's why translators don't use the same English word throughout.

    ii) And that's on top of your dubious attempt to backtranslate the meaning of a Greek word from English words.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hi Steve,

    Dan appears to be supporting the first gloss of the BADG lexicon for this word-

    [BDAG] ἐπιθυμέω
    • ἐπιθυμέω impf. ἐπεθύμουν; fut. ἐπιθυμήσω; 1 aor. ἐπεθύμησα (θυμέομαι ‘set one’s heart on a thing’; Aeschyl., Hdt.+).

    1. to have a strong desire to do or secure someth., desire, long for w. gen. of the thing desired (Hdt. 2, 66; X., Mem. 1, 6, 5; Ex 34:24; Ps 44:12; Pr 23:3, 6; EpArist 223; TestSol 16:2; ApcMos 6; Jos., Ant. 12, 309) silver, gold, clothing Ac 20:33; a good work 1 Ti 3:1; earthly things 2 Cl 5:6; someth. that belongs to another Hs 1:11. W. acc. of thing (Teles p. 42, 12; Diod. S. 37, 29, 2 τὸν πλοῦτον; Tetrast. Iamb. 2, 22, 1 p. 292; Mi 2:2; Wsd 16:3; Sir 1:26; 16:1; 40:22; EpArist 211) τὰ τοῦ πλησίον D 2:3; cp. B 19:6 (Ar. 15, 4 τὰ ἀλλότρια). τὴν οἰκοδομὴν αὐτοῦ Hs 9, 9, 7. μηδέν IRo 4:3. κόσμον 7:1. πονηρὸν ἔργον Hv 1, 2, 4. W. inf. foll. (Soph., Hdt. al.; POxy 963; Is 58:2; Sus 15 Theod.; TestSol 9:2; TestJob 11:1; ApcSed 2:1; Jos., Bell. 6, 112; Just., D. 126, 6; Ath. 11, 2) Mt 13:17; Lk 15:16; 16:21; 17:22; 1 Pt 1:12; Rv 9:6; B 16:10; Hs 9, 1, 10; 2 Cl 5:7; Pol 1:3; MPol 17:1; 19:1; AcPl Ha 2, 12. Foll. by acc. and inf. Hb 6:11. Abs. (Is 58:11; 4 Macc 2:6; JosAs 24:18) Ro 7:7; 13:9 (SLyonnet, OCullmann Festschr., ’62, 157-65) (both Ex 20:17); 1 Cor 10:6; Js 4:2.— ἐπιθυμίᾳ ἐπιθυμεῖν eagerly desire (Gen 31:30; cp. Diod. S. 16, 61, 3 νόσῳ νοσεῖν=be very ill) Lk 22:15; GEb 308, 32; s. B-D-F §198, 6; Rob. 531; Mlt-H. 443f. ἐ. κατά τινος desire against or rise in protest against someth. Gal 5:17.


    While you (Steve) appear to be supporting the second gloss for this word (as does BADG in this passage)-


    2. to have sexual interest in someone, desire, w. acc. of pers. (referring to γυναῖκα; cp. En 6:2) αὐτήν (not in ancient Gk., but used in Ex 20:17; cp. Sir 1:26. It is lacking in some witnesses; others have αὐτῆς, which corresponds to X., An. 4, 1, 14; Dt 21:11; Sus 8; Philo, Spec. Leg. 3, 66; Just., D 134, 1) with a strong desire for her, with lust for her (i.e., someone else’s wife; s. Betz, SM ad loc.) Mt 5:28 (cp. Ex 20:17; Dt 5:21; 4 Macc 2:5; lead tablet fr. Hadrumetum lines 44f: Dssm., B 31 [BS 274ff, s. p. 277] and IDefixWünsch 5 p. 25f μηδεμίαν ἄλλην γυναῖκα μήτε παρθένον ἐπιθυμοῦντα). Cp. Hv 1, 1, 4. W. gen. of pers. Hs 9, 13, 8—B. 1162. DELG s.v. θυμός. M-M. TW.


    Dan,
    you seem to be interpreting ἐπιθυμῆσαι (Mat 5:28 BNT) more akin to ἀσελγείαις (Rom 13:13 BNT).
    Which I covered to some extent in my blog here-
    http://vanberean.blogspot.com/2010/09/flee-from-masturbation-part-2.html

    Thank you for your bold discussion on this passage, Steve.
    A passage we should not be afraid to wrestle with (though I don't find Haaker convincing).

    ReplyDelete
  32. Steve,

    Since the verb is used positively in such LXX occurrences as Gen 49:14; Deut 12:20; Pss 44:11; 118:20,40; Isa 26:9; 58:2,11 (using LXX numbering throughout), I can't see that it means wrongful or inordinate desire. Rather, it seems to have a neutral ethical import. The negative connotation derives, not from the sense of the word, but the surrounding context in certain passages.

    Well most lexicons do list covet under one of the senses and most translators use covet from time to time, which would seem to indicate the word itself can take on a negative aspect.

    i) "Lust" and "covet" are not synonymous terms in English. That's why translators don't use the same English word throughout.

    That’s true, but many lexicons join them.

    ii) And that's on top of your dubious attempt to backtranslate the meaning of a Greek word from English words.

    I used it for definition, not translation.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  33. "Well most lexicons do list covet under one of the senses and most translators use covet from time to time, which would seem to indicate the word itself can take on a negative aspect."

    You keep playing a bait-and-switch. The question is not whether the word can be rendered "covet" in forensic settings. Rather, the question is whether word means "wrongful/inordinate desire."

    You were the one who brought up LXX usage. Well, as I illustrated, the same word is employed positively as well as negatively in LXX usage, depending on the verse. Therefore, you can't define the word in negative terms.

    And, indeed, the fact that it can be used either way indicates the essentially neutral import of the word. It's not the word itself, but the surrounding context, that carries a positive or negative connotation.

    "That’s true, but many lexicons join them."

    Once again, that's equivocal. Look up the word "run" in a dictionary. Many different meanings are given. One meaning is not interchangeable with another.

    "I used it for definition, not translation."

    You used a backtranslation from English to justify your Greek definition.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve,

    Sigh... we are not getting anywhere. Do we at least agree that porn is wrong? If so, I am going to just leave it at that.

    God be with you,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Sigh... we are not getting anywhere. Do we at least agree that porn is wrong? If so, I am going to just leave it at that."

    That question still won't get you any further in your arguments. A husband and wife could produce pornographic images or videos of themselves for their own viewing purposes, and in such a situation, porn isn't wrong. Even something like porn is right or wrong based upon the context in which it is made, who makes it, who views it, etc.

    The question itself doesn't mitigate against anything Steve has argued or presented in this article. If you don't think you're getting anywhere, do something that makes sense like conceding your argument is flawed, or show that Steve is ignoring what you say. Don't ask lame irrelevant questions and then disappear. That is what will truly get you nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Well, it seems more accurate to say Steve excerpted a D. A. Carson assessment of Haacker's case, with Carson finding the argument at least worthy of consideration. Were it not for the fact that I've actually read some Carson I could say that "we" could try to dismiss this as a shoddy argument invoked by some nobody who thinks he knows something about the Bible. But I'm willing to go out on a limb and say Don Carson's not one of those people about whom I'd ever say that.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Godismyjudge, setting aside Matt's rebuttal, you'd have to define what porn is before Steve would have any reason to agree or disagree. In case you haven't followed certain controversies about certain popular pastors: I live in Seattle and have heard about a decade's worth of Mark Driscoll sermons. Driscoll emphatically rejects allegorical interpretations of Song of Songs in favor of the Song referring to the sexual relationship in marriage. Plenty of people consider Driscoll's preaching from Song of Songs to be pornographic and to transform the biblical text into a pretext for opining about what he thinks about sex and marriage. We could polemically say that in Driscoll's hands the Song of Songs becomes transformed into a kind of canonized porn. Is it?

    ReplyDelete