Glory Be to Jesus Christ!
🌞
For more information about the reading from the Apostle, please refer to the links:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08062023.html
Since a significant part of my works is devoted to the study of the topic, I decided to collect the most important ones here now, so that they can be presented together, so that the whole picture can be seen. Therefore, there will be a lot of comments.
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08062023.html
Matthew V, 28 – ‘εμοιχευσεν’ – ‘emoicheusen’ — ‘has already committed adultery’ – past tense (aorist) of ‘μοιχευω’ - ‘moicheuo’ – ‘to commit adultery’. The aorist indicates an action in the past that has no direct connection with the present, often a completed and often single action in the past (although not always, often with some uncertainty about these aspects).
Literal translation: everyone who looks (now) at a woman to (for, with the purpose of) lust (rather a completed action than justlust”, in the infinitive, can also mean simply the general action of desiring a woman in the sexual sense without specification) for her has already committed adultery (a completed action in the past) in his heart.”
It must be said that these words about the heart are similar in meaning to the expulsion of the merchants from the temple, where the Lord Jesus Christ said: My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a cave of thieves (Matthew XXI, 12-17). That is, like the house of prayer, the cave of thieves, the heart becomes either a house (space and time, in general – circumstances) of fidelity or a cave (place and time, in general – circumstances) of adultery, treachery. This is indicated by the use of the preposition εν (in).
It goes on to speak of temptations and the struggle against them (victory over them).
Here I further quote on temptation from the work On Adultery. The Full Version in Ukrainian (see:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/%D0%9F%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8E%D0%B1-%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%81%D1%96%D1%8F.html
): Christ says that woe (very badly) to the world because of temptation. And especially to the person through whom temptations come. Why? For several reasons.
1) Temptation can lead to a fall, perishing, and even to the death of many people or entire groups of people.
2) Speaking of victory over temptation, Christ says that it is better for you, but in the final analysis, you lose. The right hand, the right eye, the right leg – if you win, at best you lose only these. At worst, you perish completely, along with them. So, temptation is associated with loss. Yes, it’s better to overcome it than to give in, but the best thing is to be free of temptation. Then you won’t lose anything.
3) It seems that we need to distinguish between temptations that are internal in origin and external. With regard to the former, we can confidently say that it is better to be without them. The latter (e.g. temptations from the evil one) do not indicate a tendency to sin, but rather the weakness of nature. These, if they are properly overcome, bring glory. At the same time, we need to remember that very often the latter are combined with the former, and then it is not really clear what is better: with or without them. For example, the Apostle James says that whoever overcomes temptation will receive a crown. But they would receive a better crown if (by virtue of their purity and faithfulness, as well as God’s will) they did not have such a temptation and did not succumb to it. The same apostle says that God is not tempted, and he also says that everyone is tempted by his own lust. So it is good to overcome lust and temptation, for this there is a crown. But… it is better that the former simply do not exist. Similarly, the state of the innocent who do not sin and those who have sinned but repented is different. The former is better. But if we look at the temptation of Christ by the devil in the desert, we will see that it was desirable for both God and the devil. For the Holy Spirit led Christ into the desert, but the devil rejoiced at this opportunity. But being defeated, the latter was put to shame by Christ, Who lost nothing from temptation.
(End of quote)
Returning to the words about the heart and adultery, a good work for understanding the commandment is the following:
Let us look more closely at the words of Christ: You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell. (Matthew V, 27-30).
Below are graphs created using GraphViz and my program gvti. They represent the meaning of these words in graphical form with an analysis of the components.
Immediately after speaking of the heart, Christ speaks of temptations from the members of the body. As the commentators note, this is not about the physical parts of the body. It is clear that it is the right parts of the body that can tempt. This is illustrated schematically below.
From the preceding, we can see the connection between the heart and the other parts of the body in Christ's words. It is this connection that is the focus of this publication. Let us leave lust aside for the moment and consider in more detail the relationship between the heart and the eye, as well as the other parts of the body. They are to some extent matched, and there are certain relationships between them that are worth exploring.
Let us recall another of Christ's words: For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks (Luke VI, 45). And also: But those things which proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and they defile a man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies. (Matthew XV, 18-19).
If the heart is full, then a person reveals it and does it. But if it is not filled, and there is both what is directed towards sin and what is not, then it is temptation. Temptation is a state of partial fullness. The direction of the look (hence the eyes) allows us to influence the extent to which the heart is full. And what follows about the other parts of the body, which symbolise activity and lifestyle, indicates that they can (and do) influence the same fullness of the heart. So, these body parts are like an extension of the heart, and to summarise, the heart with these body parts is like a whole organism, the whole human body.
These passages show that we can understand the heart as the inner human being. The Apostle Peter said: Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. (1 Peter III, 3-4).
The heart is like the centre, focus and concentration of the human being.
(Ukrainian original: 27/07/2020)
How to overcome temptation. Part of the work Adultery. The Full Version, which is important for understanding
To win the fight against sin, two key qualities are needed, which are revealed when we think deeply about the word enter. These are determination (to tear it out and cast it from oneself, to be with one part of the body), and the childlike ability to receive new things and live by them. This latter is seen in the words of Christ: Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God. Assuredly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will by no means enter it. (Mark X, 14-15).
If we do not receive the new Kingdom of God like children in our lives, if we are not able to be renewed every day and every hour, we will not be able to overcome sin indeed. It is precisely this ability that we need to learn from children. And without it, we will not be able to enter the Kingdom of God. Lord, may You help us!
Returning to the words of Christ about the heart and comparing them with our own state, we see that the heart is often underfilled. A full heart is manifested outwardly (in particular through the mouth), and if it is not yet manifested, it is partially full, or we can say that it has some of both. How, then, can we overcome sin, temptation, passions, and love purity and faithfulness?
We need to recognise temptation or sin. These are the right parts of the body in the context of Christ's words. Then we need to come to love purity and faithfulness in our hearts, to come to desire them in our hearts (at least partially, but it is difficult without that at all), to come to love God and our neighbours and ourselves, and then to decisively reject sin and even 'cast from oneself' the temptation. In doing so, we move from the eyes, hands, and feet to the heart (in the context of Christ's words). They are mysteriously connected in such a way that firm mastery of the former and movement towards the latter is similar to deliverance, to heroic liberation. It is impossible for a person who is not freed by God to establish themselves in purity and faithfulness in their heart, and therefore Christ does not say: Throw out part of your heart, but says, Reject the temptation. But even in fairy tales, the princess freed by the prince reciprocates his love. This image suggests that the heart becomes grateful to God for deliverance.
I would also add that it happens that a person is strongly connected with sin, and then such deliverance is called denial of oneself elsewhere — as if you lose a part of yourself, even all of yourself. And in this sense, taking up your cross means that you cannot help but change, cannot help but be freed from sin if you become a disciple of Christ. That is, if you want to be with Christ, you cannot remain in sin as you were before.
Section III. On dialogue with contemporary culture.
In contemporary culture, views differ on all of the above. But sometimes it is said that trust needs to be built in a relationship in order for them to be deep and truly beneficial. We can safely continue this idea by saying that such trust is only possible in full in marriage. Trust is not when you are afraid to dare, but when nothing is dangerous. Trust is where there is security, where there is reliability. They are possible in marriage. In fact, this is a common opinion among experienced believers.
Given all that has been said, as well as what has not been included here, it should also be said that the vision of relationships, their assessment will be different for those who accept it and those who reject it. Not everywhere, not in everything, but it will be. This is because we are talking here about the essentials that cannot be bypassed. And if you accept the essential, or, on the contrary, reject the essential, then, of course, there cannot be one opinion, but there will be different ones.
Source of the Ukranian original:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/uk/Perelyub-korotko.html
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08062023.html
To understand why the Lord speaks of the heart in this way, we also need to understand that the heart is able to bypass, to transcend the conventions of this world, including time, space, and circumstances.
Therefore, while sins in deeds are often prevented by circumstances, a person can still sin in the heart.
There is a separate reading on divorce that deals with the issue in more depth. For now, I will only note that the value of Marriage is unique – there is no example to compare with in the sense of similarity (i.e. Marriage will differ significantly from everything else). And as a unique, special value, Marriage has its own rules of preservation that distinguish it from everything else. Since man discovers so much through comparison, one needs to recognise the limitations of this approach. We need to put aside many comparisons and trust God to be true to His words.
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/20072023.html
1 Corinthians VII, 24 – ‘παρα Θεω’ – ‘para Theo’ – ‘near God, close to God, ’in the nearness’ of God’. The point is that when God called a person and they responded, they were close to God, and this state of closeness not only needs to be remembered, but it did not become an obstacle to unity with God in vocation, and therefore this state does not harm being with God in general. Similarly, the temple not only does not harm a person to be with God, but is intended to serve such a purpose. If the calling of the person by God in a certain state has become possible and effective, then this state can resemble the temple, with which the state has the just mentioned similarity.
Paul goes on to give advice, as he did earlier in the letter, as one who has hope of being faithful. See this link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/18072023.html
In the following reading, Paul speaks about psychology.
Since people can live, love, think, marry, and so on in different ways, Paul’s reasoning can be both in tune with and close to each person in Christ and also quite unusual. If a person lived before marriage wanting to please God alone, and got married in such a way pleasing a spouse are now ” a distraction”, then Paul’s words are exactly the point. If, however, a person has received marriage as a blessing from God (as, for example, was the case with Isaac, Tobit, Moses, etc. in the Old Testament), then marriage will not only not be a distraction, but will help to please God. After all, if we talk about the integrity and undividedness of a person, the best example is… the Virgin Mary… Who was… married! And this did not prevent Her from pleasing God entirely. Therefore, Paul warns, tells, teaches, but his words do not necessarily take place in people’s lives. We can also say that this is a certain experience of spiritual life, but it may be different for others.
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/21072023.html
1 Corinthians VII, 36 – ‘υπερακμος’ — ‘hyperakmos’ – ‘hyper’ + ‘akme’ – ‘has passed the bloom (flowering) of youth, of full age’.
1 Corinthians VII, 40 – ‘εμην’ – ‘emen’ – ‘my’ (thought).
Two parts, the first of which is about the marriage of virgins and about widows (generally about the state of those who are not married at present), and the second about idolatry and the use of idolatrous food.
The first part is explained in general at the link above. Specifically, Paul puts virginity above marriage without explanation. Based on the explanation in the link above, this is his experience. But it may be different for other people. If we look beyond the experience of the apostle Paul, then virginity has only one really essential advantage over marriage – virginity is more like the state of the future age, after the resurrection. Christ Himself says that after the Resurrection neither marry nor get married, but are like angels in heaven. This does not mean that marriage is inferior to virginity, but it is because in the blessed resurrection there is no need for marriage as such (this is one of the mysteries of the future age). This is also clearly seen from the fact that the Mother of God was both a Virgin and a Married Woman (as the hymns call Her, the unwedded Bride), and Christ did not need to marry, although the Church mysteriously called His Bride. Nevertheless, God’s saving and sanctifying actions, in particular in the Sacrament of Marriage, as well as the love of saved couples, are preserved in a special way in eternity, for love never ceases.
We also need to mention the passage in Matthew XIX, 1-12. There will be a specific reading of it, and then, God willing, I will write in more detail. But let me focus on the word receive and its forms and derivatives, which are used several times in this passage. In the original Greek, the word literally means to prepare a room, that is, to give room, to receive. If we recall how the heart is spoken of in the context of fidelity, also as a kind of space, and that there is virginity for the sake of the kingdom of God, it becomes clear that Christ is speaking in this form about the degree of a person’s commitment to the kingdom of God. If we compare it to human relationships, it is natural to want to be closer to a loved one. It is the same here – if a person loves God, they want to get closer to His Kingdom, and therefore give preference and importance to what is connected with it – in particular, since virginity is more like a state of the future age, such a person wants to be a chaste unmarried person more than they want to get married.
I should also note that a widow or widower can also marry a second time, as long as it is in the Lord. But it is better to remain without a second marriage (I think, given the mystery of the heart and all the above).
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/18072023.html
For more information on 1 Corinthians VI, 20, see this link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/15072023.html
Paul goes on to speak about marriage, spouses and related matters. He makes a clear distinction between the Lord’s commandment and his own advice. Nevertheless, believers, the Church sees in the apostle’s words the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore also generally accepts this advice as God’s will.
It is important to note, as I wrote earlier, that Paul could not refer to Christ’s words in this matter whenever he says from himself. This is only possible in two cases: either Christ did not say anything about it, or He did, but Paul did not know about it. In the second case, doubts arise about the authority of the Apostle Paul’s teaching in general, and I believe this option is false. Therefore, Christ did not say anything on this subject. But He did say something, which is described in the Gospels. Christ’s silence on such a vital and important topic is quite significant. It must be said that the Lord said that I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now (John XVI, 12). It is also possible to think that the perception and understanding of the faithful in different times will be somewhat different, so the Lord Jesus Christ said on this subject only what is unchanging and fundamental – until the time of His Second Coming. See, in particular:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/08062023.html
1 Corinthians VII, 5 – ‘συμφωνος’ – ‘symphonos’ – 'symphonic, consonant, sounding alike together; conveys by means of a musical image the concept of agreement, unanimity'.
As for temptation, the verse speaks of lack of self-control, that is, the virtue of temperance, that is, the ability to completely and easily control one’s desires and urges. The evil one can, with God’s permission, tempt people in marriage to adultery if they lack this particular virtue of temperance. How to acquire this virtue well in this matter is well described here:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Adultery-briefly.html
1 Corinthians VII, 7 – ‘εμαυτον’ – ‘emauton’ – ‘myself’.
I would also add that the Old Testament also has a lot to say about marriage, see, for example:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/03032023.html
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/06032023.html
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/18082023.html
The understanding of this passage differs between Orthodox and Roman Catholics. I will not dwell on this in detail now, but it will be seen later what I think Christ is saying here.
Now I will present my thoughts on how to understand these words. I hope that they come from God.
First of all, it is clear that Christ denies the understanding of Marriage as a purely human institution that emerges and develops according to human laws and rules, including the possibility of arbitrary understanding and the possibility of entering into and divorcing a marriage quite arbitrarily. No, Marriage has its origin in God, it is part of God’s intention (like the family and society) and cannot be treated as if everything is determined by people alone.
Marriage itself is a gift from God. But not every human marriage is established in accordance with God’s will; the situation here is much like the situation with authority. I wrote about the authority at the following link:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/commentaries/29072023.html
Divorce is not established by God, it is a human phenomenon, but Christ says that Moses allowed divorce because of the hardheartedness of the people.
On the other hand, Moses sees the inability to divorce as a form of punishment. In the Law of Moses, it is described that if a boy and a girl (man and woman) have sexual relations without being engaged to another, they must marry and will not be able to divorce for all their lives (as long as they live) as a punishment for dishonour (see Deuteronomy XXII, 13-19, 28-29).
In view of this, it is difficult to say whether the Church has (should have) divorce as such. The verses from Matthew V discussed above and this reading suggest that fornication is a possible cause of divorce.
I would also like to recall the story of the Nativity of Christ — Joseph, when he discovered that Mary was pregnant, wanted to secretly let Her go (they were engaged, that is, they were to be fidelitous, but not yet married), but was assured by an angel in a dream that he should not be afraid to take Mary as his wife (in chastity, virginity). In other words, the desire to divorce may be connected with fear, which is why the Angel says Do not fear.
In general, as far as I understand, Roman Catholics do not recognise such a thing as divorce in a solemnised marriage, but in the case of adultery, they believe that the marriage was invalid.
Divorce can also be part of adultery, unless it is justified by the other person’s guilt of fornication, and is followed by another marriage. If someone marries another person the day after the divorce (or on the same day), then the fact of adultery is said to be evident. But Christ says that the time distance between these two events does not matter for the human heart, for the person themselves. That is, even if the second marriage is remarried a long time after the divorce not because of fornication, adultery remains as such. We can see that Christ values marital love – a second marriage contradicts the unity of true love in marriage.
Quote:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Desires.html
Sexual attraction, desire, lust, love relationships, marriage and divorce from a Christian perspective
Recently, I had a lively discussion on this important topic. Some participants welcomed the main thesis, while others raised various possible objections or questions. I decided to create a free-form piece, presenting the ideas I presented in the form in which they were first published — in Dutch - with the help of a translator and a little bit of editing.
The text is disordered and unsystematic, but the meaning is still quite clear behind the not quite clear structure.
I think that if an unmarried boy and girl are a couple, their strong sexual desire comes from a certain deficiency. Ideally, their relationship should be so rich and fulfilling without sex that it shouldn’t cause strong desires that are hard to resist. The situation was similar in Paradise.
Not generally strong desires, but actually strong sexual desires.
I believe in God the Creator. The theory of macroevolution has significant drawbacks, the main one being the lack of ‘intermediate links’. I’m not against sex, but it has a certain purpose, meaning, properties, and so on, which I wrote about. If you are interested, I can give you links to my works in which I write about my beliefs in English and Ukrainian.
But humans are different from all other creations of God, especially in their spiritual and physical nature, their image of God, and so on. Therefore, it makes no sense to consider a person to be one of the animals…..
In animals, sexual activities are mainly, if not exclusively, about procreation and have little to do with human freedom. But human relationships, and especially those with God, are quite different.
Some people think that marriage has no impact on people, especially on the biological level.
Some people tend to reduce one thing to another. In particular, they can say that sexual desire is purely biological, that it is associated with animals, and marriage, on the other hand, to a purely social phenomenon that binds people to each other and to some animals. This is called 'reduction'. But external similarities are not enough for such a classification. Do you think that human sexual desire and behaviour is not significantly different from that of animals?
From the Christian point of view, it is wrong to completely ‘divide’ a person into different dimensions, to try to consider them separately. A person is a holistic being. And this is what makes them different from animals.
Divorce exists to prevent a clear, evident evil. Divorce has no other purpose, and so it is much better if it is not necessary.
God created humans, animals, angels, etc., so this does not mean that ‘God has nothing to do with sex.’ ….. God has blessed people to be fruitful and multiply in marriage. The Son of God, that is, God, became human and even went through situations in which people tend to think about sex. But He did not have lust, let alone sex (He did not need them, and yet He is the mysterious Bridegroom of the Church). On the contrary, strong sexual desire is synonymous with lust. And the Bible is the Word, the Revelation of God, and it speaks a lot about these issues.
If a person feels sexual attraction, if they are attracted with love to sexuality, then they have the ability to have sexual drive. This is one thing, and it is really quite natural, just as the opposite state is natural. Both states are very natural. But if a person has a strong sexual desire, lust, then this is a completely different state. And it has its own peculiarities.
The main feature of lust is that it is not completely free, and therefore not sufficiently controlled. Free, desirable, and consensual sex and forced, unfree sex are not the same thing. The latter can even be a crime, such as rape. Thus, lust has a certain unfreedom in it, it is ‘a movement that takes place in a person beyond their freedom’.
Lust is like the desire to sleep, eat and drink. We have to eat, drink, etc., we have these desires regardless of our freedom. Marriage creates a relationship in which we can say that the freedom of one person is in the other. See in particular my poem:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C6izPylsnYr/
See more about what has just been said:
https://oleksandr-zhabenko.github.io/en/Cup.html
I would also say that we are talking about natural marriage, but in a sacramental church marriage, God gives direct gracious help in this too.
Yes, we can say that lust outside of marriage comes from a certain deficiency. In the simplest, most general sense, it is a deficiency of the ‘other person’ and the level of satisfaction in the relationship, and most importantly, a deficiency of the ‘ holisticity of the sexual desire’ in that person.
I’m probably not expressing myself in the best way, I’m sorry, I need to comprehend things that are not well comprehended.
Source of the original post where I wrote my comments:
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7ZUysVNhTK
To the Venerable Martin of Turov:
For the readings from the Apostle, see the link:
https://www.facebook.com/Oleksandr.S.Zhabenko/posts/
There is also a good discussion of readiness for the coming of Christ there.
Regarding the Gospel:
I also wrote earlier about the heavenly treasure in relation to a Matthew’s parallel passage of the Sermon on the Mount.
In order to avoid quoting a rather lengthy comparison and reasoning, I will only briefly summarise my thoughts: 1) the fulfilment of the Gospel’s commandments leads to receiving the source of true heavenly joy; 2) this does not mean that a person is necessarily saved, but that God grants a certain enduring joy to a person; 3) joys that are not connected with the fact that a person fulfils the Gospel commandments may fade away and disappear completely; 4) all this is described in metaphors.
Glory be to Thee, our God, glory be to Thee!