If a man lusts after a woman...

[Phileoeklogos]

Oh that saucy winch!............................. never underestimate total depravity

 

[TimRout]

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.

In a sense, I can relate to some of what you're saying. Certainly we don't have to look very far to find examples of disciplinary abuse. But tell me brother...how do you interpret the Lord's command on this issue [Mt. 18:15-18]?

 

[mlqurgw]

In a sense, I can relate to some of what you're saying. Certainly we don't have to look very far to find examples of disciplinary abuse. But tell me brother...how do you interpret the Lord's command on this issue [Mt. 18:15-18]?

The key here is "if thy brother trespass against thee". The Lord our Master isn't giving authority to the elders or pastors here He is speaking to how a brother should deal with a situation with a brother. As Paul teaches in 1Cor. 6:1-8 we are to deal with things between brothers between brothers. He also gives another example to us in Matt. 18:18-35 And we are told by our Master to leave the tares with the wheat because we cannot tell which is which. Matt. 13:24-26 It is the natural inclination of men to wish to do what God only can do. The church certainly isn't pure because we ourselves are in it. It is Christ who purifies His church not the pastors or elders. The real problem is that we set ourselves up as judge when we cannot live up to our own standards. If we actually practiced church discipline, according to the standard that many set, we would be the first to go.

 

[TimRout]

The key here is "if thy brother trespass against thee". The Lord our Master isn't giving authority to the elders or pastors here He is speaking to how a brother should deal with a situation with a brother. As Paul teaches in 1Cor. 6:1-8 we are to deal with things between brothers between brothers. He also gives another example to us in Matt. 18:18-35 And we are told by our Master to leave the tares with the wheat because we cannot tell which is which. Matt. 13:24-26 It is the natural inclination of men to wish to do what God only can do. The church certainly isn't pure because we ourselves are in it. It is Christ who purifies His church not the pastors or elders. The real problem is that we set ourselves up as judge when we cannot live up to our own standards. If we actually practiced church discipline, according to the standard that many set, we would be the first to go.

An interesting perspective. Thank-you for sharing it.

Regarding Mt. 18:15, your exegesis is reasonable. I suppose part of the issue relates to the textual variant found in this verse. As you know, not all translations render "against you" following "If your brother sins...". The NASB, for example, reads as follows:

15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private...."

Tell me though --- with regard to my previous example text --- does not the Lord authorize us to judge our brother provided we ourselves are not guilty of the same sin [Mt. 7:1-5]? Specifically, I am referring to the closing phrase of the passage:
"...then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

And if we are not to judge our fellow Christians, then what did Paul mean when he said the following:
[1 Cor. 5:9-13/NASB]
9"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."

Is not this passage speaking directly to the matter of church discipline?

 

[trentlogain2]

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.

Interesting. I'm yet failing to see where the woman, who was given in the original poster's example would be guilty though. I'm trying to weigh in human beings sin nature and the horribleness of one's heart, but still coming short of seeing how they both have lusted "with" each other. If you care to expound more, I would appreciate it. By the way, your own personal story you gave came close to answering my question. But it still hasn't hit home.

 

[TimRout]

Interesting. I'm yet failing to see where the woman, who was given in the original poster's example would be guilty though. I'm trying to weigh in human beings sin nature and the horribleness of one's heart, but still coming short of seeing how they both have lusted "with" each other. If you care to expound more, I would appreciate it. By the way, your own personal story you gave came close to answering my question. But it still hasn't hit home.

The OP presupposes that the woman does not consider her clothing to be immodest. However, that does not mean she's right. Ultimately, I suppose it comes down to awareness. If the woman is aware that her outfit is causing a problem for some who look at her, then it seems she has a duty to modify her definition of modesty [Ro. 14:21].

 

[mlqurgw]

An interesting perspective. Thank-you for sharing it.

Well it certainly ain't the one taught in seminary.

Regarding Mt. 18:15, your exegesis is reasonable. I suppose part of the issue relates to the textual variant found in this verse. As you know, not all translations render

"against you" following "If your brother sins...". The NASB, for example, reads as follows:

15"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private...."

I think the context makes it pretty clear that the translation "against you" is true. Why else would Peter have asked the question and why would the Lord answer the way He did. Especially considering the parable He gave next. Was Peter really all that concerned with the sin of others at this time?

Tell me though --- with regard to my previous example text --- does not the Lord authorize us to judge our brother provided we ourselves are not guilty of the same sin [Mt. 7:1-5]? Specifically, I am referring to the closing phrase of the passage:

"...then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye."

Verses 3-5 actually explain verses 1-3 The point is that we have no real right to judge the sin of our brothers because they are just like us. The Master isn't telling us that we aren't to judge but that we aren't to judge our brothers. When we are without sin then we can judge the sin of our brothers. When are we ever without sin?

And if we are not to judge our fellow Christians, then what did Paul mean when he said the following:

[1 Cor. 5:9-13/NASB]
9"I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; 10I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.
11But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
12For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church? 13But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES."

Is not this passage speaking directly to the matter of church discipline?

I am not totally against discipline but I do believe that many take this passage way too far. First Paul was speaking with the authority of an Apostle. We don't have that authority. Second the sin he was dealing with was an extremely grievous one. Third his intention was to restore the offending one. He wasn't using discipline to reign over the members or to keep the church pure. He wanted to lovingly bring the offender back into the fold. We should warn our brothers to not bring reproach on the name of Christ but we cannot, and have no right to, keep them on a leash or to kick them out of the church. It isn't our church it is Christ's.

 

[TimRout]

MLQURGW: Well brother, I respect your position but I can't agree with your exegesis. Perhaps enough has been said.

 

[leothelioness]

A hypothetical instance as given by the OP is pointless.

If you view my question as pointless, then don't participate in the thread. It's simple, really.

BTW, could we keep this thread on topic, please?

 

[leothelioness]

Yikes....

LOL. I'm sure some would prefer that we dress like that.

 

[LovebirdsFlying]

It's "blame the victim" mentality that causes women who have been raped to despise themselves afterward. They want to know, did I do anything to ask for it? And too many times, they are accused of doing just that. Some women don't even report rape, out of shame or fear that they will be asked what they did to provoke the man.

I don't care if a woman is out late at night, dancing provocatively at a night club, dressed like a Victoria's Secret model. She's wrong to do that, yes, but it doesn't give a man any right to put his hands on her against her will.

But this thread is about lust, not rape. Do you know that to some men, a nun in full habit is more appealing than a streetwalker? Why? Because she is forbidden, which makes conquering her more of a victory than taking someone who is there for the asking. Is this the nun's fault? Certainly not. Some men are just that way.

I once made the mistake of saying, in a rather large coed support group, that because of relationship difficulties, I was taking myself off the market for the time being. I want you to know that the men in that group practically lined themselves up at the door to tell me, "If you ever change your mind, give me a call." I dress modestly, and besides that I am a queen-size woman who is nobody's idea of Hollywood beauty. But what I look like and how I presented myself mattered nothing at all. I could have looked like Quasimodo and dressed like a lumberjack, and they still would have swooped. Because when I hung up a "closed" sign, I made myself a challenge. Their William-the-conqueror mentality kicked in, and they wanted to be the one who was man enough to persuade me to change my mind.

Was it my mistake, to bring relationship difficulties up in a group containing men? Possibly. But was their reaction my fault? I don't think so.

 

[DD2008]

I think both parties are guilty to a point. Both are in the flesh and that part of them is naturally depraved and born into sin. The woman likes to feel like men desire her. The man likes to desire her and wallow in his wicked thoughts about her.

I'm not sure how to really define "lusting after a woman".

In my experience, from the time I was about 9 or 10 years old I've been lusting after one woman or another in one fashion or another far too often. It's not near to the degree it was when I was in my late teens and early 20's but sometimes I still do have to kick myself out of swivel head syndrome. I just returned to the mainland from Hawaii for crying out loud. I've kicked myself sore recently.

Anyway, are we saying lust is just thinking the woman is attractive and then slapping yourself back to reality for losing focus, or are we saying that lust is thinking in your heart, "if I had the chance with her, I'd dive right in and not look back"?

I've been guilty of both degrees of depravity at various times in my life. However through the grace of God we can overcome sin and persevere. For God's adopted children, perseverance and dying to sin is a certainty.

Genesis 4:7 ESV
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted?And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is foryou, but you must rule over it.”

Matthew 26:41 ESV
41 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

Romans 8:13 ESV
13 For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.

Galatians 5:16 ESV
16 But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.

Romans 8:1-11 ESV
8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.2 For the law of the Spirit of life has set youfree in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin,he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. 8 Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

 

[Allen1901]

Did anyone read the OP? How is it the woman's fault if She dresed modestly?

God Bless!

 

[DD2008]

Did anyone read the OP? How is it the woman's fault if She dresed modestly?

God Bless!

There are so many unknowns in this scenario that makes it very difficult. These days what is considered dressing a female modestly could be a dental floss top with jean shorts. Who knows what was said or done...etc

 

[JohnDeereFan]

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

The man is responsible for his lust. God knows the woman's heart and will judge it justly.

 

[Canuckmom]

If a woman is dressing and behaving modestly it is obviously the man who sins. But I think our modern fashion industry is encouraging women to dress in ways that really are not modest and younger women may not be aware of this.
The following link is helpful: I read it with our daughter when she entered her teens and learned from it myself.

The Sin of Bathsheba/Modesty