If a man lusts after a woman...

[leothelioness]

...whose fault is it? What if the woman was dressed in a way she perceived to be modest and was still lusted after?

 

[TimRout]

In the case you hypothesize, both the man and the woman would be sinning. He would be lusting [Mt. 5:28]. She would be comporting herself immodestly [1 Tim. 2:9].

 

[Epiphoskei]

Always the man, sometimes the woman. The woman may or may not be dressing modestly, and the man may be lusting regardless.

 

[AMR]

The fault lies with the inclination, thus the one who is lusting. Yes a woman dressed provocatively has her own issues to deal with, but the question here relates to the one who lusts, not the object of that lust.

AMR

 

[Allen1901]

It's the Man's fault.

God Bless!

 

[trentlogain2]

Both are at fault. The Bible says he has lusted with her already in his heart. All of that goes beyond my comprehension. All I know is that the man should not be looking on her lustfully, and the woman should not be dressing herself in a way that would be a stumblingblock to another man. Just my two cents.

Edit: You said, "modest". I'm sorry. So my statement about a stumblingblock would not apply here unless she is doing nothing else.

Still, The Bible says lusted with her. To be a liar, (let God be true and every man a liar) it frustrates me that I don't know how to answer this even though I've been through this many times.

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him." - James 1:5

 

[mlqurgw]

...whose fault is it? What if the woman was dressed in a way she perceived to be modest and was still lusted after?

What is the point of playing the blame game? What does any of us do that isn't mixed with sin? Would it make you feel better to know he has sinned while thinking you may not have? I am not trying to be mean or harsh but every time I come across such questions it seems that is the point of them. Folks want to relieve their guilt by pointing the finger at others.

 

[ydouxist]

Pro 23:5 Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.

Luke 17:1 "Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.

Some wealthy people want others to be envious of what they have. This is not the case with others. The same is true for beauty. If the womans motive is to cause someone to lust, then both are at fault and will be held accountable.

I think of lust in the same way.
Temptation is not sin.

Jam 1:15 Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.

If a man has a problem with lust and can't overcome it through prayer, then he should confess it to another man.

 

[leothelioness]

What is the point of playing the blame game? What does any of us do that isn't mixed with sin? Would it make you feel better to know he has sinned while thinking you may not have? I am not trying to be mean or harsh but every time I come across such questions it seems that is the point of them. Folks want to relieve their guilt by pointing the finger at others.

Huh??? What does this have to do with me? I asked a hypothetical question.

Let me just say that if anyone has lusted after me, I have no clue about it.

 

[leothelioness]

In the case you hypothesize, both the man and the woman would be sinning. He would be lusting [Mt. 5:28]. She would be comporting herself immodestly [1 Tim. 2:9].

What about the second part of my question? What if the woman dresses in a way she believes to be modest and is not dressing with the intention to make men notice, yet she is still lusted after?

The key here is dressing with the INTENTION of making men take notice. Only then would it be wrong on the woman's part.

 

[Flibbertigibbet]

James 1:14
"but each one is tempted when, by his own evil desire, he is dragged away and enticed"
(emphasis added)

We are responsible for our own sin.

 

[TimRout]

What is the point of playing the blame game? What does any of us do that isn't mixed with sin? Would it make you feel better to know he has sinned while thinking you may not have? I am not trying to be mean or harsh but every time I come across such questions it seems that is the point of them. Folks want to relieve their guilt by pointing the finger at others.

Well my friend, aside from the biblical mandate to hold all guilty parties accountable [Lev. 20:10-18], there is a valuable pastoral principle to be observed.

While the following does not speak directly to the OP, it does address your concern:

A few years ago, I dealt with a couple on the verge of divorce. He said "She refuses to have sex with me. No sex, no marriage." She said, "I'm not having sex with this goof. He habitually uses inappropriate content!" Ultimately, she filed for divorce. He left the church voluntarily, even though we asked him not to. She desired to keep her membership, but was refused.

Our leadership took some heat for their approach. Angry comments about the woman being the innocent party, or inappropriate content usage being equivalent to adultery, filled my inbox each morning for days on end. While the Elders and I had told the church about what happened and why the couple were leaving, we had sought to limit the details ---- there are some things people simply don't need to hear. But as tensions continued to climb over the next two weeks, we finally decided to publically explain why we were inclined to offer pastoral care to the highly repentant husband, and not his disgruntled wife.

You see, early into their five year marriage she had decided to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) the physical aspect of their relationship, because she simply doesn't enjoy sex. She had admitted to us that in order to accomplish her goal she had purchased a number of inappropriate content videos for her husband, hoping to redirect his interests. When the split came, she readily acknowledged her part in hooking her husband on inappropriate content, but still insisted that the whole thing was his fault. The man repented. She did not. Were they both guilty? Yes. But their mutual guilt helped to reframe our disciplinary decision.

Consequently, I find the OP's question both valid and helpful.

 

[Epiphoskei]

Do we not all agree that succumbing to lust is a sin that the man is guilty of?

Do we not all agree that women ought to dress modestly and sin if they do not?

If we do, doesn't that really settle the issue? Men sin by lusting, and the woman may or may not be guilty of immodesty.

 

[Allen1901]

What about the second part of my question? What if the woman dresses in a way she believes to be modest and is not dressing with the intention to make men notice, yet she is still lusted after?

The key here is dressing with the INTENTION of making men take notice. Only then would it be wrong on the woman's part.

I agree.

God Bless!

 

[mlqurgw]

Well my friend, aside from the biblical mandate to hold all guilty parties accountable [Lev. 20:10-18], there is a valuable pastoral principle to be observed.

While the following does not speak directly to the OP, it does address your concern:

A few years ago, I dealt with a couple on the verge of divorce. He said "She refuses to have sex with me. No sex, no marriage." She said, "I'm not having sex with this goof. He habitually uses inappropriate content!" Ultimately, she filed for divorce. He left the church voluntarily, even though we asked him not to. She desired to keep her membership, but was refused.

Our leadership took some heat for their approach. Angry comments about the woman being the innocent party, or inappropriate content usage being equivalent to adultery, filled my inbox each morning for days on end. While the Elders and I had told the church about what happened and why the couple were leaving, we had sought to limit the details ---- there are some things people simply don't need to hear. But as tensions continued to climb over the next two weeks, we finally decided to publically explain why we were inclined to offer pastoral care to the highly repentant husband, and not his disgruntled wife.

You see, early into their five year marriage she had decided to reduce (and ultimately eliminate) the physical aspect of their relationship, because she simply doesn't enjoy sex. She had admitted to us that in order to accomplish her goal she had purchased a number of inappropriate content videos for her husband, hoping to redirect his interests. When the split came, she readily acknowledged her part in hooking her husband on inappropriate content, but still insisted that the whole thing was his fault. The man repented. She did not. Were they both guilty? Yes. But their mutual guilt helped to reframe our disciplinary decision.

Consequently, I find the OP's question both valid and helpful.

The Biblical mandate is the Gospel of forgiveness. You are right that there are times when particular sins need to be dealt with but it is actually a rare thing. Trying to figure out who is sinning is a game folks love to play because it takes their eyes off of what they are doing. If we would deal with our own sin we wouldn't have time to worry about someone else's.

 

[TimRout]

The Biblical mandate is the Gospel of forgiveness. You are right that there are times when particular sins need to be dealt with but it is actually a rare thing. Trying to figure out who is sinning is a game folks love to play because it takes their eyes off of what they are doing. If we would deal with our own sin we wouldn't have time to worry about someone else's.

Perhaps we're speaking from different perspectives. I was addressing the issue of church discipline relating to disobedient members, whereby the Lord commands us to deal with the sins of others [Mt. 18:15-18]. Indeed, we are also instructed to judge others unhypocritically [Mt. 7:1-5]. There can be no forgiveness if one is not first willing to face one's guilt.

 

[mlqurgw]

Perhaps we're speaking from different perspectives. I was addressing the issue of church discipline relating to disobedient members, whereby the Lord commands us to deal with the sins of others [Mt. 18:15-18]. Indeed, we are also instructed to judge others unhypocritically [Mt. 7:1-5]. There can be no forgiveness if one is not first willing to face one's guilt.

First let me say that I highly respect you and enjoy reading your posts. It wasn't and isn't my intention to be disrespectful in any way. That being said( here comes the bombshell after buttering you up ) A hypothetical instance as given by the OP is pointless. How would a person know if man was lusting after her to begin with? It certainly wouldn't be something a professing believer would do openly. Unless the sinful acts of a believer is actually causing difficulty in the church it is between that person and God. I find nowhere in the Scriptures that tell the elders or pastors to keep a reign on the members or to keep the church pure. The practice of so-called church discipline has done much more harm than good actually in my opinion. Certainly in some cases it must be done but they are rare occasions. A pastor can better deal with the blatant sin of a member from the pulpit by preaching continually on the sin that is being committed without pointing fingers and humiliating a possible brother or sister in Christ. If they remain unrepentant they will soon leave on their own. It works, I have seen it. What many call church discipline is nothing more than self-righteous legalism. It humiliates the one against whom it is enforced and rather than restore it alienates. I have seen that far too many times as well. And no I have never been the object of church discipline.

 

[DD2008]

Yikes....

 

[Phileoeklogos]

Wow, check out than one in the blue!

 

[DD2008]

Wow, check out than one in the blue!

I knew it wouldn't work.