James writes "to the twelve tribes in the Dispersion", to the Jews who are throughout the world. He has a lot to say about a lot of topics, but in chapter 4 he brings up the problem of infighting. Why do we have conflict? "The reason," he says, "is that you desire and do not have." So we fight to get what we want. Bad. Then, as if in disgust over the whole thing, he writes this: "You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God?" (James 4:4).
This is an odd concept on the face of it. Since "adultery" has a definition -- sexual relations between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse -- how exactly does that work in spiritual terms? Let's see if we can figure this out.
First, Jesus defined adultery in a way that did not require sex. He said "I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matt 5:28). Thus, "lustful intent" is the gold standard, not necessarily "sexual relations". Okay, so that clears up the sex question ... but what about the rest? I mean, what is "spiritual adultery"?
Well, one of the characteristics -- core concepts -- of "adultery" is "married". An unmarried person cannot commit adultery with an unmarried person. He or she can commit sexual immorality, but not adultery because adultery requires "married". In spiritual terms, who is "married"? Scripture uses the metaphor of "marriage" in both the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, Israel is referred to as the wife of God. Israel's idolatry is often referred to as adultery for that reason. Note that nations that were not the wife of God could not commit adultery in this way. There's was certainly sin, but it was not adultery. In the New Testament, the Church is the "bride of Christ". So it is Christians who are capable of committing spiritual adultery.
In what sense can Christians commit spiritual adultery? Well, if Christians are "the bride of Christ" and adultery requires "lustful intent", it follows that spiritual adultery would be a Christian with "lustful intent" for someone other than Christ. And there you go -- now we have an image of spiritual adultery. It's in this light, in fact, that James makes perfect sense when he refers to those "adulterous people". Their "lustful intent" was "friendship with the world".
Having figured out what it is, I would hope that the concept is actually a bit unnerving. You see, I doubt that any one of us could claim to be impervious to spiritual adultery. I don't think one of us could claim to be free of that sin. We love to desire other gods. We love the television and the Internet, entertainment and fun, comfort and pleasure. We are much more comfortable with sinners than we are with Christ. Our first response, when we learn that a command is asking us to give up something in this world, is, "Is that so?", not "Yes, Lord!" Like the hymnist, we are "prone to wander". Rarely does our passion for Christ rival our passion for the world. We stand condemned, a wicked and adulterous generation.
I love Romans 8:1 -- "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus." It is the core of my hope. It is my only hope. But I want to change. I want to love Christ more and the world less. I don't want to be classified as an enemy of God because I want to be a friend of the world. More of Him, less of me. That's where I want to go. I'm glad to have a spouse that forgives. I don't want to abuse it.
8 comments:
You state:
Since "adultery" has a definition -- sexual relations between a married person and someone other than his or her lawful spouse --
But where, in Scripture, is that definition given? Looking at the entirety of Scripture I would propose that our definition is faulty... and unBiblical. That adultery is actually more: 'any violation of the marriage covenant', which would include such things as lust or (when one's husband is God) idolatry.
"But where, in Scripture, is that definition given?"
It is, of course, a fairly silly question, you understand. No one expects any text anywhere to create definitions within the text for all of the words it uses ... or the text would be nearly infinite. Still, "Why define it thus?" is a reasonable question.
I would have to ask the same, on the other hand, of your definition. You've made it any violation of the marriage covenant. That would mean that a wife who withholds sexual relations from her husband for an evening committed adultery in doing so. A husband who failed last Tuesday to love his wife as Christ loves the Church committed adultery in doing so. On what would such a broad definition be based?
Beyond that, you would also have to be arguing that all biblical dictionaries, expositors, commentators, and translators have it wrong ... and you have it right. So, not only would I want to know where such a broad definition would come from, I would also need to have substantial evidence that this is so.
Well, first of all, I will not grant such unanimity to the commentators.
But leaving that aside, the answer here is easy: take every single mention of adultery in the Scriptures; take away all those where the meaning could go either way and: you will find yourself not with a mixture of verses that mean actual intercourse with verses that refer to something else; but an almost unanimous collection of verses that refer to something broader.
So, of the two, I would say that the evidence is on the side of unfaithfulness as being the 'core' meaning; and actual intercourse as being the crude, physical, epitome. Else we denigrate what Christ himself said... 'has committed adultery'... Hopefully his words count as 'substantial' ;)
Could you please explain "unfaithfulness"? It would seem to me, for instance, that a core element of biblical references to adultery is "with someone else". That is, that wife I mentioned in the previous comment does nothing on the day in question with anyone else. Your suggestion of "unfaithfulness" would seem to include "all by myself" entirely. (For instance, referencing Jesus's words, while the person who looked on her with lustful intent operated "by himself", it was specifically with "her" in mind, so it was not actually by himself.) It looks to me like Scripture references adultery as something that a married person commits with another person. So I'm hoping you can clarify "unfaithfulness".
As long as we are agreed that the 'someone else' need not be actively involved, I think I agree with you.
In I Cor 7 we find the 'refusal' kinds of violations listed as 'defrauding' not 'adultery'. So that would leave us with two types of violations of the covenant: defrauding (a failure to live up to the obligations) and adultery (an outward focused form of defrauding).
So a woman accepting a date from a man not her husband, would you agree that that falls into the 'adultery' side of the occasion? Even if they don't sleep together?
That's why I asked you to expound on "unfaithfulness". Taking my example of the husband who failed last Tuesday to love his wife as Christ loves the Church, I would say that he had been "unfaithful" -- violating the covenant of marriage -- but not "adulterous" (or even defrauding). I'll agree that it doesn't require sexual relations, but I'm not sure I'd go as far as "any violation of the marriage covenant".
Any violations is wrong: these violations may fall into one or more categories: defruading (which is a form of denial of something due) or adultery (which is a giving of that due thing to someone else). Does that work for you?
While I would call it defrauding, not "defruading" (sorry, just messing around), I guess I can go with that. It is important, though, that it is someone, not simply something. I would have a hard time, for instance, saying that a husband who spent two hours longer at work than he should have because he should have been spending it with his wife would be classified as "adulterous". He gave the time to work that he should have given to his wife. I think that it does have to be someone. So I going with a cautious agreement.
Post a Comment