Menu Close

Matthew 5:28: Genocide or Slavery?

guest-post

Guest post by P.D. and Tanya

Matthew 5:28 remains the primary endorsement among Christians for criminalizing sexual thoughts, with never a mention of its origins or historical context. Whilst we don’t wish to venture any farther into the subject of masturbation, a brief mention of it will be necessary. Nevertheless, the primary agenda here is to expose the truth about this passage in a contributory attempt to diffuse any further Christian abuse.

The Genocide Position

Matthew 5:28 is a damning verse incorporated within a statement allegedly made during the Sermon on the Mount, beginning with verse 27 and continuing through to verse 30. The entire passage with verse 28 underlined is:

“You have heard it said that it is a sin to commit adultery. But verily I say unto you, any man who looks upon a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

If your right eye causes you to sin, gauge it out and through it away, for it is better to lose one part of your body than to be thrown whole into Hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, hack it off and throw it away, for it is better to enter life maimed than be cast whole into Hell.”

This is arguably the most traumatizing and harmful quote in the history of literature, and one which has destroyed the peace of mind of so very many. Throughout Christian web forums, the most asked question by young believers is: “Is masturbation a sin?” In every instance, they are referred to this quote. Even the more liberal Christian advisors, who offer the view that masturbation, in itself, is not sinful, continue to condemn sexual lust. What they fail to acknowledge is that the same hormones that drive one towards masturbation are the same hormones that guide the mind towards sexual thoughts, imagery and erotic literature. For example, without testosterone, a male would not even know the desire to view pornography.

At face value, Matthew 5:27-30 is a statement that if any male has feelings of sexual desire towards a female, he should either commit self-mutilation, or be cast into eternal fire. Christians say that this is justified because sexual desire is for marriage only; a rather ludicrous position, for how might one be drawn to a future spouse without first feeling the fires of the passion within? For one to deny one’s own involuntary sexual instinct instigated by healthy hormones is not only a genocidal suggestion, but one which also presents an extreme danger in the immediacy. The Catholic Church demands that certain members of its clergy embrace a life of complete sexual abstinence, the torment of which drives them into a state of virtual insanity. This is shown by its position as the record holder for the highest number of incidents of child sexual abuse on earth.

But why should anybody take Matthew 5:28 seriously?

As with all the New Testament gospels, the Gospel of Matthew begins with a blatant lie – its title. Nobody knows who wrote any of the gospels other than that they were written decades after the events they claim to be describing. The earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, comes to us once again anonymously, only with an additional question. Not only did nobody named ‘Mark’ actually write it, but neither does anybody know who this ‘Mark’ was supposed to have been. He wasn’t named as one of the twelve disciples and wasn’t mentioned as character anywhere else in the New Testament.

‘Matthew’ clearly plagiarized ‘Mark’ in many places, and the majority of scholarly opinion places its (Matthew’s) origins between 80 and 85 C.E. (Duling, pp.298, 302.) Ergo, if Christians wish to assert that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector, they must also explain why an eyewitness to the events would need to plagiarize the words of one who was not.

Another vital question to ask before examining the validity of Matthew 5:28 is – could the Sermon on the Mount have even taken place? It’s three chapters long, and is said to have occurred in a location where nobody beyond those on the front row would have been able to hear the sermon. Jesus would certainly have had no access to a P.A. system. The audience would have been largely illiterate and therefore even those who could hear him would have required photographic memories in order to relate it to others. Those others would, in turn, also have needed photographic memories in order to regurgitate three chapters worth, and continue to pass it down for fifty years until it reached our anonymous, falsely-ascribed author.

However, while 5:28 appears to demand that all people must despise their own natural sexual instinct and, subsequently, promote global genocide; does it actually call for anything of the kind?

The Bible does, indeed, promote complete sexual denial and genocidal doctrine. Matthew 19:12 states:

“There are those who were born eunuchs. There are those who became eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it let him receive it.”

Christian apologists argue that this is merely an invitation to embrace celibacy. However, given that there is nothing whatsoever to indicate celibacy in the quote (everybody knows what a eunuch is) it seems reasonable to assume that they are merely seeking to keep their own options open.

The other is Colossians 3:5 – “Deaden your bodily members to their passions.”

From an objective point of view, that would be considered self-explanatory.

However, these are very rarely used in the criminalization of sexual thoughts, fantasies, erotic novels, pornography or masturbation. Matthew 5:28 remains the favourite for instilling guilt and terror into the libidinous, the world over. Nevertheless, even from a biblical perspective, this translation is a mistake!

The Slavery Position

If a man looks at a woman lustfully, he has committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Why not “If a woman looks at a man lustfully?” Or “…a man looks at a man lustfully?” Or “…a woman looks at a woman lustfully?” Notice also the use of the word ‘adultery’ and not fornication. A pre-existing marriage had to be a factor in order for this to apply. The word rendered ‘lustfully’ is taken from the Greek epithumia, meaning “desire to possess.”

With those particulars taken into account, the answer to the meaning of Matthew 5:28 can be found in Exodus 20:17 – the tenth Commandment: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s property; neither his land, nor his oxen, ass, slave, maidservant, wife, or any other chattel.

It is rather ironic that the Ten Commandments are considered to be the ultimate guidelines for morality when they conclude with an endorsement of slavery and the insistence that a man’s wife is his lawfully-owned chattel. It also introduces the world to the most totalitarian concept possible – thought crime. However, it clearly explains why there was no such concept as any other sexually-desiring concept other than a ‘man looking at a woman lustfully.’ This also elucidates why ‘adultery’ was the stated offence and not fornication. It is concerned purely with ancient Jewish ownership rights and the objectification of women – “Don’t desire your neighbour’s property.” It bears no relation to the prohibition of masturbation, pornography, or any other form of contemporary erotica.

Christians argue that the issue with lust is one of “betrayal and the heartbreak caused by marital infidelity.” This reasoning is what will happen when people attempt to superimpose contemporary western values upon writings from the middle-eastern Bronze Age. As with modern day Iraq, there was no such cultural concept as ‘romance’ during the time of Jesus. How we view love today in the West originated during the twelfth century. ‘Romantic love’ was literally an invention of the Troubadours. Marriage in first century Judea was an arrangement of owner and property; a man and his chattel-wife. Such unions usually resulted from a business arrangement between the father of the groom and the father of the bride, and where virginity was considered to have commercial value. Women were sold into marriage with no say in the matter. The most nauseating example of this can be found in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 where, under the Law of God, it states that a rapist must pay his victim’s father 50 silver shekels for the loss of the father’s ‘property.’ He was then compelled to marry his victim.

When questioned about the morality of forcing a rape victim to marry her own rapist, Christians we have interviewed usually defer to the argument that: “It was a different time, and nobody else would have wanted to marry her following the rape. It then became the rapist’s responsibility to care for her.” This is a blanket statement that the women of the Bronze Age did not feel pain as the women of today do, neither did they feel violated, nor did they value their lives as we do today. This is despite the fact that their natural life-spans were far shorter than ours. It is also a blind assumption that a Bronze Age rapist would make a fine ‘carer.’ The majority of secular people in our civilization today would have no hesitation in declaring that there can be no context whatsoever that could ever possibly justify forcing a rape victim to marry her own rapist.

How ironic it is that Christians use Matthew 5:28 to assert their position that pornography objectifies women. Porn stars are paid well for their work, and they can leave the studio and return home whenever they choose. A first century Judean wife would never have been afforded such privileges.

More than 90% of Christians, including Christian counsellors, have never fully read the Bible, or have any understanding of its cultural origins. This demonstrates yet another ironic example of the blind leading the blind – into a ditch of utter misery.

Final thoughts and Conclusion

The modern use of Matthew 5:28 is to regard human beings as robots who are presumed to be able switch off certain aspects of their bodies and minds at will, and reactivate them at the moment they utter the words “I do.” Arguments that ‘lust’ objectifies women and treats them as sex objects abound in their condemnation of the most essential of all human instincts, leaving an endless trail of trauma, guilt and hadephobia in their wake.

In reality, they are using a passage which endorses the worst forms of female objectification, misogyny and loveless slavery; their erroneous arguments enabled through religion’s ultimate foundations: the lust for power and control – and the blatant refusal to think.

11 Comments

  1. Avatar
    marfin

    The word translated rape in Deuteronomy 22-28 is tapas but a better translation is lay with or, take hold, as the word translated rape in verse 25 is chazaq which clearly is rape and is punishable by death, why the change of word from chazaq to tapas, because they mean different things.
    Now re Matt 5.28 and self control of your sexual thoughts , in your view should we take control of any of our sexual thoughts and impulses , as we all well now there is not an action by a human that has ever taken place that was not first a thought in the mind , so self control should we have it and to what degree.
    Lastly re the self mutilation aspect of Matt 5.28 have you never heard of hyperbole to emphasise a point, man you would never make it as an NFL coach , What do you mean coach when you say you want us to smash their offence to pieces, do you mean literally to pieces.

    • Avatar
      Geoff

      Marfin, I was tempted to be facetious and enquire what the Spanish word for lids had to do with the bible, but decided not to.

      So let’s follow your line of thought but addressing the issue of the word ‘abomination’ as referred to in Leviticus 18:22, the bit about not lying with mankind. Apparently the original Hebrew word is ‘toevah’ and simply means taboo. It can easily be asserted that there are contextual reasons why the word abomination was not intended.

      I’m not in the least a bible scholar, though I’m becoming familiar with many of these re-interpretation (to suit) approaches. You clearly are a bible scholar so will be able to colour and manipulate words to say whatever you wish them to say. I’ll just say this; Christians, especially fundamentalists, get obsessed by particular versions of the bible, particularly the KJV. I’m told that if I read this and heed its messages I’ll be saved. Then when I point out logical deficiencies and inconsistencies I’m told I need to understand the original Hebrew or Aramaic, or whatever. So why doesn’t a bible scholar come up with a decent translation into English that accounts for all these translation difficulties?

      Apologetics is facing a losing battle and seems not even to realise how badly.

    • Avatar
      Bruce Gerencser

      You’ve got me laughing, Marfin.

      Your last visit here you posed as a scientist and now you are a Hebrew scholar. Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night? (American commercial reference you may or may not understand) You are out if your depth here. You might want to take a look at the 355 occurrences of the two words you take issue with. Cherry picking a definition out of a concordance is NOT a proper way to make a point about a language you know nothing about.

      As to the words being different. You do realize that the oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts are dated thousands of years after the supposed events they record? No inference can be made from the manuscripts other than these are the words used at the time the manuscripts were copied. Unless you hold to the insane idea that God preserved his “Word” down through time, you have no idea what the actual author of Deuteronomy wrote. And hopefully you don’t believe the equally insane notion that Moses wrote Deuteronomy.

      • Avatar
        marfin

        Two things Bruce if Any person who is not a scientist or Hebrew scholar is not allow look at and examine the evidence for themselves and make a judgement on said evidence , then you and I may as well stop now, otherwise please cite every area you are an expert in and stick to speaking on those topics only.And please don`t tell me you are are an expert on the bible or religion because if you do I will ask to see your qualifications, degree`s diplomas, Surely studying something for 30 plus years does not make you qualified to speak on a subject a little piece of paper from a college says you are qualified. Do you agree Bruce.
        Secondly a criticism was made of Deuteronomy 22 re rape if you cannot trust the veracity of Deuteronomy 22 then why quote and criticise the passage on rape as you cannot trust any of Deuteronomy 22 so how do we know the passage on rape was correct or even in Deuteronomy to begin with.
        Is the holiday inn a Gideon`s reference or are they giving studies in ancient Hebrew at the holiday inn now, ha ha. Us Europeans know 10 time more about the USA then Americans know about Europe blame movies,TV and 24 hour news and the history channel, By the way hows that civil war going for you guys any sign of south giving up that crazy idea of succession , see dumb and dumber “we landed on the moon” ref

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          My point is this…Hebrew is a complex language. Most pastors have little training in the language and you have none. You reached for a concordance and found a definition that reinforces your view of the text. The least you can do is actually look at the word usage in 353 other instances they are used. You have the requisite skill necessary to do that and you didn’t. Yes, I’m making a slight assumption here, but I suspect I’m spot on. Take the time to look at how these words are used in other parts of the OT. You will find, as I did in about ten minutes of study, that your argument has no merit.

          Since you believe the Bible is an inspired, inerrant text, I just wanted you to be aware of the the dating and authorship issues, both of which should give you pause when make a simplistic statement like….two different words…the author must have meant for there to be two different meanings. There’s no way to know what the author originally met because we don’t know who the author was or what he actually wrote. The extant manuscripts are dated thousands of years after the events recorded in the text (that is if they happened at all), so the only argument you can make is that these manuscripts say ______________. Until you dig up the original manuscripts, you can’t say what the author said or what words he used in these two verses.

          So, get off your high horse or move on. I’ve had my fill of fundamentalists this week.

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          Holiday Inn reference:

          Starting in 1998, Holiday Inn Express started an ad campaign called “Stay Smart” ads that featured ordinary people achieving superior feats, such as averting a nuclear disaster or performing like rock stars. When questioned on whether or not they are professionals, they would attribute their skills to their stay there with the reply: “No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express!” These ads have received positive reviews, and have been so successful they have crossed over into popular culture, having been featured in late night comedian jokes and political cartoons.

        • Avatar
          Bruce Gerencser

          I would add that yes, any of us should be able to look at the evidence and come to some sort of conclusion. The smart man recognizes what he doesn’t know. Quoting a cherry picked definition from a concordance means nothing. All this means is you can read. Now if you had said you looked at all 355 instances of these two words ( along with similar words and how they are used)then I might pay attention.

  2. Avatar
    marfin

    I have looked at the word horse in 353 other context`s and surely you don`t think I am sitting on a very tall four legged animal while posting these responses, but then again maybe you do.Maybe the horse is on drugs hence the high ref, but you not being an expert in English language are not in a position to comment.

  3. Avatar
    Scott

    It seems to be sex and science that get’s Marfin out his hidey hole to troll on by. Joy.

    Marfin, so if I write a novel in which I kill off a character, am I guilty of murder? Because if we apply the “Biblical Logic” (TM Pending) here, I should be because I’ve killed “someone” in the same way I’m guilty for admiring a very nice ass for too long pondering fondling it.

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Scott

Want to Respond to Bruce? Fire Away! If You Are a First Time Commenter, Please Read the Comment Policy Located at the Top of the Page.

Discover more from The Life and Times of Bruce Gerencser

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Bruce Gerencser