Mainstream Christianity is wrong about Matthew 5:27-28 (the famous “lust” passage)

[Billy93]

This is the go-to passage for people to condemn “lust,” which our modern ears automatically equate to mean “sexual fantasy.” However, I think taking a closer look at the words reveals that this passage has been long-misinterpreted, used to shame people (especially young men) for any and all sexual thoughts. And as we should know well by now, just because mainstream Christianity says something, doesn't mean they're right; we ultimately need to look to Scripture and make sure we're properly understanding the meaning of the words.

I will invariably be accused by some of “trying to justify sin.” But as Paul said in Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” We have to know what God's Word actually condemns. So, how do we find out? The answer is actually in the same verse:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 7:7 KJV

First off, it is worth noting that many modern translations actually use “covet” for the first word instead of “lust,” so that the verse appears to refer only to covetousness. (This is an example where the KJV really shines.)

For example:

“For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NIV

“I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, ‘You must not covet.’” NLT

“For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” ESV

“For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NKJV

The reason these modern versions do this is because both instances are actually the same word in Greek: epithumeó. However, this misses the essential point worth being aware of, which is that epithumeó is also the exact same “lust” word used by Jesus in the Matthew passage.

So, the Bible is very clear on this: The Bible tells us that epithumeó lusting is the same thing as the coveting of the OT. Therefore in order to understand what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:27-28, we need to go back to the context of the OT and discover what exactly coveting meant. In other words, when Paul tells us in Romans 7:7 to look at the 10th commandment to understand what Matthew 5 lust is, that is where we need to look.

The context in which desire is used in the 10th commandment, helps us understand exactly what kind of desire God is condemning. When condemning covetousness in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17), God mentions things like a man's house and his cattle, alongside things like his wife and his servants. Well, if God was simply saying it was wrong to find a man's house desirable, then that would mean that no person could ever sell another person their house, and real estate transactions would be sinful. If God was saying a man could not find another man's cattle desirable, then farmers would go out of business because they could not buy or sell cattle. So, we know God is not condemning a person finding things that belong to another, desirable.

Instead, what God is condemning is the strong desire (to the point of planning) to wrongly use or possess something that does not belong to us. He is condemning thoughts of plotting theft, not mere thoughts of desire. And in the context of sex, he not condemning a man finding a woman sexually desirable, but rather he is condemning a man desiring to seduce/entice a woman into sex outside of marriage. This would apply both to premarital sex and adultery.

Here is a great video to help show you exactly what covetousness is.

So basically, it seems Matthew 5:27-28 isn't just about some guy who is simply fantasizing about a woman, while not having any intent to ever actually seduce her/commit adultery with her. The reason adultery is already a sin in his heart in this passage, is because he's already on the path to adultery; he is coveting her, planning/intending to actually have sex with her. Think David & Bathsheba:

When did David first sin in the Bathsheba story? Was it when he first merely fantasized about her? Or was it when he allowed the fantasies to get out of control and progress to the point that he was actually planning on getting her husband killed, so that he could commit the act of adultery with her? There are three steps to this, not two: 1. The fantasizing 2. The intent/planning to take/possess (coveting) 3. The act of following through with it and seducing her.

#3 is obviously actual adultery. So which one is “committing adultery in his heart”? I would argue that it is clearly #2. #1 was okay, but #2 was where he first ran into trouble with actual sin. Of course you could argue that #2 would have been less likely to happen if he hadn't even done #1. And I suppose that's a possibility, but there are plenty of people out there who engage in #1 on a daily basis and never let it progress to #2. What is a problem for one person, isn't always a problem for another.

So in the Matthew passage, this isn't just some guy having a fantasy; rather, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot, and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to seduce her.” Whether or not he goes through with it or succeeds, he has still committed adultery in his heart by starting to set that plan to commit the sin, into motion. But looking at her and having sexual thoughts pop in his head, or even consciously imagining acts with her? It's just not the same thing. Same deal goes for masturbation and fantasy at home; sitting at home imagining sexual acts with a person is nowhere near the level of actually thinking “Ok, I need to go out and actually have premarital/extramarital sex.” (In fact, there are plenty of people who credit fantasy/masturbation with helping prevent them from going out and actually committing fornication/adultery!)

Mainstream Christianity sees Matthew 5:27-28 and rightly hones in on the heart-sin of “committing adultery in one's heart.” But the problem I think is that they mistakenly think the heart-sin is simply “fantasizing,” just because that's what goes through their mind when their modern ears hear the word “lust.” But that just doesn't seem to be the biblical meaning of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think they're right to hone in on the fact that there is a heart-sin, but they're just wrong about what it is: The heart-sin is that the hypothetical guy in this passage is already intending/planning to seduce the woman - not that he is simply having a fantasy about her. The sin of adultery is already in his heart before he even carries out the act. The intent/planning to physically sin, is the heart-sin. The point Jesus was making was that a sin like adultery doesn't just happen spontaneously; you actually plan and intend to do it, in your heart beforehand. And doing so, is wrong. But simply imagining/thinking about an attractive woman, doesn't necessarily lead to you standing at her door to have extramarital sex with her. Lol.

But here's another example: Me thinking about how a cheeseburger would taste really good right now, doesn't mean I'm actually going to even plan to go get one right now—let alone actually go. It just means I'm thinking a cheeseburger would taste good... We can have desires for enjoyable things in life, but we must have self-control and not let the desires progress to the point of planning to/intending to commit the actual sin. (Obviously eating a cheeseburger isn’t a sin, but I hope you get my point.)

Believe me, I'm as conservative of a Christian as they come (I believe the Bible is 100% the Word of God) and used to think all this stuff was sin too... but I've come to the conclusion that Christian culture has artificially made something into a sin, that actually isn't one. Following the Bible is what we are called to do, but there's a problem when the church misinterprets/mistranslates words and then creates false doctrines that lead to Christians feeling guilty and suffering and thinking they can't live up to an ideal that even God never expected us to live up to… And by the way, the Bible even warns against this! Groups of believers in the early church were already starting to twist things to make life even harder on believers - and they were chastised for doing so!

It's all a shame, because if I'm right (I increasingly think I am), then that means many Christians are sadly battling something that isn't even a sin. I went years thinking it was a sin, just bc that is what was taught at church/at my Christian school and because of the common modern understanding of the word “lust”... but when you dig deeper into the biblical meaning of words, it's a whole other story.

In conclusion, this (unfortunately mainstream) idea of repressing sexual fantasies is not biblical, and just leads to plenty of young Christians (especially men) needlessly suffering. Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.

Tl;dr The Bible is not saying that it's a sin to fantasize about a woman; it's saying that it's a sin to think about a woman (particularly a married woman) with the intent to/having a plan to actually seduce her and have extramarital sex with her. That's the reason for the whole “already committed adultery in his heart” thing; the guy is already planning to commit the sin. This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”; no, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to try and seduce her.”

Here are some links which go much more in-depth, and undoubtedly do a better job of explaining it than me:

Why "Lusting" in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn't Make All Men Adulterers - Berean Patriot

"Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust": Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1 | Jason Staples

Sexual Arousal And Fantasy Are Not Sin

Bible Topic Study: Matthew 5:28 Lust and Adultery

Do Not Covet: Is It a Feeling or an Action? - TheTorah.com

 

[ViaCrucis]

We aren't supposed to be objectifying other human beings. A human person is not an object to possess, but a person to be loved, respected, and served with humility, compassion, and grace.

When we come to regard another human being as an object to be taken as a possession, we have erred--transgressed God's Law, and have sinned against our neighbor. For this reason it was written in the Decalogue, "Do not covet your neighbor's wife", and Christ our Lord and God teaches not so much as to direct our selfish passions and desires at another person. We are not to take possession of another; but to give ourselves away in peace, love, mercy, and humble service to another.

In the same way that Christ has given Himself away to the world, we as His disciples are called to a life of carrying our cross, and throwing ourselves away in love toward our fellow human beings. When we objectify a human person, we have indeed sinned both against God and our fellow man.

There's nothing wrong with sexuality. There's nothing wrong with sexual desire. But when the passions of the flesh, enflamed by human sin, are malformed, misshapen, and misdirected it is sin. On account of human concupiscence, the sad and tragic truth that we are fallen sinners whose hearts and minds and desires have been directed inward. As human beings bent inward upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se), by sin, we do not love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and we do not love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the reality of sinful man under the Law.

Therefore, we need to take our sin seriously. We need to take our sin seriously and confess it boldly before God, and recognize ourselves as the naked and shameful sinners that we are. Not in a pessimistic, self-loathing way, but rather to simply be honest about the content of our innermost heart and thoughts.

God already knows we are sinners, and He already loves us. He already sent Christ, in order to suffer and die and rise again for us. But insisting that our dung doesn't stink only makes us worse. Like a prodigal son eating pig slop and still being too proud to return home to a loving father.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SkyWriting]

This is the go-to passage for people to condemn “lust,” which our modern ears automatically equate to mean “sexual fantasy.” However, I think taking a closer look at the words reveals that this passage has been long-misinterpreted, used to shame people (especially young men) for any and all sexual thoughts. And as we should know well by now, just because mainstream Christianity says something, doesn't mean they're right; we ultimately need to look to Scripture and make sure we're properly understanding the meaning of the words.

I will invariably be accused by some of “trying to justify sin.” But as Paul said in Romans 7:7, “I had not known sin, but by the law.” We have to know what God's Word actually condemns. So, how do we find out? The answer is actually in the same verse:

"What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Romans 7:7 KJV

First off, it is worth noting that many modern translations actually use “covet” for the first word instead of “lust,” so that the verse appears to refer only to covetousness. (This is an example where the KJV really shines.)

For example:

“For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NIV

“I would never have known that coveting is wrong if the law had not said, ‘You must not covet.’” NLT

“For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, ‘You shall not covet.’” ESV

“For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, ‘You shall not covet.’” NKJV

The reason these modern versions do this is because both instances are actually the same word in Greek: epithumeó. However, this misses the essential point worth being aware of, which is that epithumeó is also the exact same “lust” word used by Jesus in the Matthew passage.

So, the Bible is very clear on this: The Bible tells us that epithumeó lusting is the same thing as the coveting of the OT. Therefore in order to understand what Jesus meant in Matthew 5:27-28, we need to go back to the context of the OT and discover what exactly coveting meant. In other words, when Paul tells us in Romans 7:7 to look at the 10th commandment to understand what Matthew 5 lust is, that is where we need to look.

The context in which desire is used in the 10th commandment, helps us understand exactly what kind of desire God is condemning. When condemning covetousness in the 10th commandment (Exodus 20:17), God mentions things like a man's house and his cattle, alongside things like his wife and his servants. Well, if God was simply saying it was wrong to find a man's house desirable, then that would mean that no person could ever sell another person their house, and real estate transactions would be sinful. If God was saying a man could not find another man's cattle desirable, then farmers would go out of business because they could not buy or sell cattle. So, we know God is not condemning a person finding things that belong to another, desirable.

Instead, what God is condemning is the strong desire (to the point of planning) to wrongly use or possess something that does not belong to us. He is condemning thoughts of plotting theft, not mere thoughts of desire. And in the context of sex, he not condemning a man finding a woman sexually desirable, but rather he is condemning a man desiring to seduce/entice a woman into sex outside of marriage. This would apply both to premarital sex and adultery.

Here is a great video to help show you exactly what covetousness is.

So basically, it seems Matthew 5:27-28 isn't just about some guy who is simply fantasizing about a woman, while not having any intent to ever actually seduce her/commit adultery with her. The reason adultery is already a sin in his heart in this passage, is because he's already on the path to adultery; he is coveting her, planning/intending to actually have sex with her. Think David & Bathsheba:

When did David first sin in the Bathsheba story? Was it when he first merely fantasized about her? Or was it when he allowed the fantasies to get out of control and progress to the point that he was actually planning on getting her husband killed, so that he could commit the act of adultery with her? There are three steps to this, not two: 1. The fantasizing 2. The intent/planning to take/possess (coveting) 3. The act of following through with it and seducing her.

#3 is obviously actual adultery. So which one is “committing adultery in his heart”? I would argue that it is clearly #2. #1 was okay, but #2 was where he first ran into trouble with actual sin. Of course you could argue that #2 would have been less likely to happen if he hadn't even done #1. And I suppose that's a possibility, but there are plenty of people out there who engage in #1 on a daily basis and never let it progress to #2. What is a problem for one person, isn't always a problem for another.

So in the Matthew passage, this isn't just some guy having a fantasy; rather, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot, and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to seduce her.” Whether or not he goes through with it or succeeds, he has still committed adultery in his heart by starting to set that plan to commit the sin, into motion. But looking at her and having sexual thoughts pop in his head, or even consciously imagining acts with her? It's just not the same thing. Same deal goes for masturbation and fantasy at home; sitting at home imagining sexual acts with a person is nowhere near the level of actually thinking “Ok, I need to go out and actually have premarital/extramarital sex.” (In fact, there are plenty of people who credit fantasy/masturbation with helping prevent them from going out and actually committing fornication/adultery!)

Mainstream Christianity sees Matthew 5:27-28 and rightly hones in on the heart-sin of “committing adultery in one's heart.” But the problem I think is that they mistakenly think the heart-sin is simply “fantasizing,” just because that's what goes through their mind when their modern ears hear the word “lust.” But that just doesn't seem to be the biblical meaning of what Jesus was actually talking about.

Don’t get me wrong, I do think they're right to hone in on the fact that there is a heart-sin, but they're just wrong about what it is: The heart-sin is that the hypothetical guy in this passage is already intending/planning to seduce the woman - not that he is simply having a fantasy about her. The sin of adultery is already in his heart before he even carries out the act. The intent/planning to physically sin, is the heart-sin. The point Jesus was making was that a sin like adultery doesn't just happen spontaneously; you actually plan and intend to do it, in your heart beforehand. And doing so, is wrong. But simply imagining/thinking about an attractive woman, doesn't necessarily lead to you standing at her door to have extramarital sex with her. Lol.

But here's another example: Me thinking about how a cheeseburger would taste really good right now, doesn't mean I'm actually going to even plan to go get one right now—let alone actually go. It just means I'm thinking a cheeseburger would taste good... We can have desires for enjoyable things in life, but we must have self-control and not let the desires progress to the point of planning to/intending to commit the actual sin. (Obviously eating a cheeseburger isn’t a sin, but I hope you get my point.)

Believe me, I'm as conservative of a Christian as they come (I believe the Bible is 100% the Word of God) and used to think all this stuff was sin too... but I've come to the conclusion that Christian culture has artificially made something into a sin, that actually isn't one. Following the Bible is what we are called to do, but there's a problem when the church misinterprets/mistranslates words and then creates false doctrines that lead to Christians feeling guilty and suffering and thinking they can't live up to an ideal that even God never expected us to live up to... The Bible even warns against this! Groups of believers in the early church were already starting to corrupt things by imposing their own doctrines to make life even harder on believers - and they were chastised for doing so!

It's all a shame, because if I'm right (I increasingly think I am), then that means many Christians are sadly battling something that isn't even a sin. I went years thinking it was a sin, just bc that is what was taught at church/at my Christian school and because of the common modern understanding of the word “lust”... but when you dig deeper into the biblical meaning of words, it's a whole other story.

Tl;dr The Bible is not saying that it's a sin to fantasize about a woman; it's saying that it's a sin to think about a woman (especially a married woman) with the intent to/having a plan to actually seduce her and have extramarital sex with her. That's the reason for the whole “already committed adultery in his heart” thing; the guy is already planning to commit the sin. This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”; no, this is a guy who is thinking “My neighbor's wife is hot and he'll be out of town next week. I must have her; I'm going to try and seduce her.” This (unfortunately mainstream) idea of repressing sexual fantasies is not biblical, and just leads to plenty of young Christians (especially men) needlessly suffering. Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.

Here are some links which go much more in-depth, and undoubtedly do a better job of explaining it than me:

Why "Lusting" in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn't Make All Men Adulterers - Berean Patriot

"Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust": Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1 | Jason Staples

Sexual Arousal And Fantasy Are Not Sin

Bible Topic Study: Matthew 5:28 Lust and Adultery

Do Not Covet: Is It a Feeling or an Action? - TheTorah.com

All man is guilty of sin.
Guilty just for thinking independently of God at any instant.
We are born into sin as an environmental condition.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well that is all interesting. I'll have to look into it more, but what you are saying does make sense.

I have often noted that things in the New Testament come across wrong, or people can get bad ideas by taking ideas too far. And yes the quoted passage comes to mind especially with Jesus equating some kind of lust, with actually comitting the act. Some might also say, "hey if I thought about it now I might as well do it, if it is all the same". And well it should be obvious that it really is not all the same. You might want to put up a Rabbinic fence around thought, to encourage people to not sin, and nip things in the bud. But sin that is actually physically committed does more damage etc. So in reality we should be thankful for people who can nip sin in the bud before commiting anything physical, even if it fall short of what the passage speaks of.


But thanks for the post, I think it will provide some more clarity on the issue.

 

[DragonFox91]

This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”

You really don't see the problem w/ that?

Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.
Right, but then what happens? They act on it. One-night-stands & stuff.

Sorry, you're going down a slippery slope. Jesus recognizes that slope & when he says lust, he means lust & recognizes the slippery slope.

 

[Carl Emerson]

This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”

You really don't see the problem w/ that?

Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.
Right, but then what happens? They act on it. One-night-stands & stuff.

Sorry, you're going down a slippery slope. Jesus recognizes that slope & when he says lust, he means lust & recognizes the slippery slope.

I think there is a big difference between appreciating beauty, and sexual fantasy.

I don't believe that sexual urges should be the main driver towards marriage.

The mind is a battleground and a garden for us to keep well tended for Jesus. Sexual fantasy is a weed that needs to be pulled out real quick before it grows into a dominating shade that blocks out the light of Christ.

 

[Billy93]

This isn't just some guy who's thinking “Wow, she's hot; it's fun to imagine what she'd be like in bed”

You really don't see the problem w/ that?

No. If it proceeds to the actual sin Jesus refers to (10th commandment covetousness) then it is a sin.

Your sex drive is how God designed you; it is not a defect or something that only came about because of the Fall & sin. You were made to have sexual thoughts and fantasies, to help drive you to marriage. Men were made to have a sexual hunger for women and vice versa.
Right, but then what happens? They act on it. One-night-stands & stuff.

Not everyone acts on it, though. And if they do (or even plan to), then they are sinning.

Sorry, you're going down a slippery slope. Jesus recognizes that slope & when he says lust, he means lust & recognizes the slippery slope.

Jesus didn’t say “lust,” though. That’s the whole point. The word is “epithumeó,” and Paul confirms that it is the exact same thing as OT covetousness, the 10th commandment. You are not even addressing my argument...

 

[Billy93]

I think there is a big difference between appreciating beauty, and sexual fantasy.

I don't believe that sexual urges should be the main driver towards marriage.

The mind is a battleground and a garden for us to keep well tended for Jesus. Sexual fantasy is a weed that needs to be pulled out real quick before it grows into a dominating shade that blocks out the light of Christ.

Where does the Bible say sexual fantasy is wrong? David’s initial sin wasn’t simply fantasizing about Bathsheba, he only got to 10th-commandment covetousness when he started planning to actually commit the act with her.

 

[Billy93]

All man is guilty of sin.
Guilty just for thinking independently of God at any instant.
We are born into sin as an environmental condition.

Never said all man isn’t guilty of sin; obviously they are. But in Matthew 5:27-28 Jesus isn’t teaching anything radically new; he is deliberately referring to the 10th commandment. Nobody ever talks about that: Why not? Instead, they act like he’s talking about any/all fantasy about anyone. Also, the Greek word used for “woman” is the same as which is used for “wife” - so when you consider that the word “adultery” is present in the passage, it is further proof as to what Jesus was referring to. Adultery is a specific situation defined explicitly in the Bible.

 

[DragonFox91]

Billy, read Paul's letters for holy living.

A good summation of the possible relevant issues, ViaCrucis says very well:
"We aren't supposed to be objectifying other human beings. A human person is not an object to possess, but a person to be loved, respected, and served with humility, compassion, and grace."

Not everyone acts on it, though. And if they do (or even plan to), then they are sinning.

That's the whole point......

Jesus didn’t say “lust,” though. That’s the whole point. The word is “epithumeó,” and Paul confirms that it is the exact same thing as OT covetousness, the 10th commandment. You are not even addressing my argument...

What on earth do you think lust is.....?

 

[Billy93]

We aren't supposed to be objectifying other human beings. A human person is not an object to possess, but a person to be loved, respected, and served with humility, compassion, and grace.

When we come to regard another human being as an object to be taken as a possession, we have erred--transgressed God's Law, and have sinned against our neighbor. For this reason it was written in the Decalogue, "Do not covet your neighbor's wife", and Christ our Lord and God teaches not so much as to direct our selfish passions and desires at another person. We are not to take possession of another; but to give ourselves away in peace, love, mercy, and humble service to another.

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7 KJV

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 KJV

God created women for men, and He even told David that He gave him the many wives of Saul - and would have been willing to give him more! Yes, it’s not “politically correct,” but it’s biblical. Furthermore, you do realize that even the “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” you mention lists the wife alongside other possessions, in context.

In the same way that Christ has given Himself away to the world, we as His disciples are called to a life of carrying our cross, and throwing ourselves away in love toward our fellow human beings. When we objectify a human person, we have indeed sinned both against God and our fellow man.

It doesn’t say that. We “objectify” and “use” people every day in various ways. That doesn’t mean we stop seeing them as people. Aren't we objectifying a masseuse when we use them to feel good from a massage?

There's nothing wrong with sexuality. There's nothing wrong with sexual desire. But when the passions of the flesh, enflamed by human sin, are malformed, misshapen, and misdirected it is sin. On account of human concupiscence, the sad and tragic truth that we are fallen sinners whose hearts and minds and desires have been directed inward. As human beings bent inward upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se), by sin, we do not love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and we do not love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the reality of sinful man under the Law.

By your logic, a person is not allowed to enjoy eating, or listening to music, or doing or thinking about anything that they find enjoyable because it is “selfish.”

Therefore, we need to take our sin seriously. We need to take our sin seriously and confess it boldly before God, and recognize ourselves as the naked and shameful sinners that we are. Not in a pessimistic, self-loathing way, but rather to simply be honest about the content of our innermost heart and thoughts.

We do, but only if it’s actually sin.

God already knows we are sinners, and He already loves us. He already sent Christ, in order to suffer and die and rise again for us. But insisting that our dung doesn't stink only makes us worse. Like a prodigal son eating pig slop and still being too proud to return home to a loving father.

I’ve prayed repeatedly about this issue. In fact, it was shortly after I first prayed about this, and asking God to show me the sins in my life, that I found these arguments about the Matthew 5 passage. That was almost half a year ago. I have repeatedly prayed for my eyes to be opened if I am wrong, because I do not want to sin. Well, that has not happened. In fact, all I’ve found is more and more articles and evidence showing that Matthew 5 has been misinterpreted. I’ve been convicted and turned from various behaviors, but not this. And I have asked God to do so in my heart, if it is indeed a sin.

 

[SkyWriting]

Never said all man isn’t guilty of sin; obviously they are.

Not obvious. That is the purpose of the passage. Let me put it another way:

John 16:24
Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Psalm 4:7
You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.

Proverbs 10:28
The hope of the righteous brings joy, but the expectation of the wicked will perish.

 

[DragonFox91]

Billy, I'm clicking thru some of your links. A couple of the authors state "the church has been teaching this for centuries but I'm here to tell you today they're wrong." I see a big problem w/ that.

 

[Billy93]

Billy, read Paul's letters for holy living.

A good summation of the possible relevant issues, ViaCrucis says very well:
"We aren't supposed to be objectifying other human beings. A human person is not an object to possess, but a person to be loved, respected, and served with humility, compassion, and grace.”

Of course they are to be loved and seen as human beings, but we “objectify” people in various ways on a daily basis and that is not wrong. God never condemns David for simply fantasizing about Bathsheba; in fact he and other godly kings no doubt fantasized about their MANY wives and concubines before they got married. David’s sin started when he took it to the point of actually coveting Bathsheba - insatiably desiring her to the point of plotting to have her husband killed. It wouldn’t have been the sin of covetousness if he had simply thought about her once or twice, but didn’t let it go any further than that. He let it get to the point that he had to have her. That was covetousness.

That's the whole point……

? Sorry, not understanding your point. The heart-sin (10th commandment aka covetousness) is when you start to plan to actually commit the physical sin (7th commandment aka adultery). Jesus is referring to the 10th and 7th commandments in Matthew 5:27-28.

What on earth do you think lust is.....?

Lust as referred to in that verse is 10th commandment covetousness. Why is this so difficult to understand? The problem is that you read “lust” and incorrectly hear it with your modern ears; you instantly think of the dictionary definition that the world uses nowadays. You think it means simply “sexual fantasy.” Look at the Bible; that is not what it means. You are still thinking in terms of “Well, my Bible says ‘lust’ and my dictionary/modern understanding is ‘sexual fantasy.’” But that’s not correct.

The whole point is that it has been misinterpreted - and you can rely on Scripture to discover this. It’s not like I’m sitting over here twisting Scripture to arrive at this conclusion for myself; it straight-up says that Matthew 5 “lust” = 10th commandment covetousness. Which is more intense/involved than simple fantasizing.

 

[DragonFox91]

I suppose it's to the extent you're fantasizing.

Did you edit your OP so it's more wishy-washy?

Few things:
1.) Emphasis of the fantasizing should NOT be sex.
2.) We're called to be holy & live godly. Would God lust after girl after girl after girl fantasizing having sex w/ them? Probably not
3.) Yes, it's okay to dream about a girl if you'd like to get married, or date. If not, no, you probably shouldn't be doing it.
4.) Yes, it's okay to lust after a girl when you're married to her.
5.) It doesn't matter if the word is lust or covet.
6.) & not sure why you're calling my beliefs 'modern' when your teachers admit these are the teachings that have been taught for centuries???

These seem like fair & reasonable teachings to me, not misconstruing anything, & capable of following.

And we don't know David's extent of sinning. If you think he never sinned prior to taking action w/ Bathsheba, have I got a goldmine to sell you.

 

[Basil the Great]

The OP may have a point, to a certain extent anyway. I always did think that Jimmy Carter's interview in Playboy magazine where he talked about lusting after women other than his wife was a probably bit much.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Where does the Bible say sexual fantasy is wrong? David’s initial sin wasn’t simply fantasizing about Bathsheba, he only got to 10th-commandment covetousness when he started planning to actually commit the act with her.

There are plenty of sins that don't get a mention in the bible...

 

[ViaCrucis]

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:7 KJV

“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” 1 Corinthians 11:9 KJV

God created women for men, and He even told David that He gave him the many wives of Saul - and would have been willing to give him more! Yes, it’s not “politically correct,” but it’s biblical. Furthermore, you do realize that even the “Do not covet your neighbor’s wife” you mention lists the wife alongside other possessions, in context.

The obvious misogyny aside...

The traditional numbering of the 10 commandments used by Christians in the West distinguishes between coveting possessions and coveting your neighbor's spouse. So that line of reasoning ain't gonna fly.

It doesn’t say that. We “objectify” and “use” people every day in various ways. That doesn’t mean we stop seeing them as people. Aren't we objectifying a masseuse when we use them to feel good from a massage?

By your logic, a person is not allowed to enjoy eating, or listening to music, or doing or thinking about anything that they find enjoyable because it is “selfish.”

Nope. It means that when our desires are turned inward, rather than outward, we are seeking to gratify ourselves and failing to live for the sake of our neighbor. Yes, if your desire for food causes you to hoard food while your neighbor right beside you is starving, you are sinning.

We do, but only if it’s actually sin.

The Apostle St. Paul has written, "Whatever is not of faith is sin." What the Law was unable to do, on account of sin, God has done by sending His own Son in the flesh, that through faith in Him we would be made righteous--justified. The righteousness of faith is what counts. Apart from faith all our works are wretched, even our most noblest and highest efforts. Because every work we do is stained with our own bloody, violent, and sinful hands.

The more seriously we take God's Greatest Commandment, that we love the Lord our God and love our neighbors as our selves, the more we shall see the grand disparity between what we ought to do, and our abysmal failure to do it. It is in this nakedness of our sinful humanity before God that we are driven to our knees in contrition and repentance. And thus in our call as followers of Jesus, to carry our cross of discipleship, we must continually mortify our flesh through repentance, that we might drown the old Adam.

To quote Dr. Luther, "Sin boldly, but let your faith in Christ be all the more bold." That is, let's not pretend our dung doesn't stink, when it does. Let us be honest with ourselves, we are sinners. We sin constantly. And therefore let us boldly confess our sins, in full trust of God's promise which we have in the words of St. John, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

I’ve prayed repeatedly about this issue. In fact, it was shortly after I first prayed about this, and asking God to show me the sins in my life, that I found these arguments about the Matthew 5 passage. That was almost half a year ago. I have repeatedly prayed for my eyes to be opened if I am wrong, because I do not want to sin. Well, that has not happened. In fact, all I’ve found is more and more articles and evidence showing that Matthew 5 has been misinterpreted. I’ve been convicted and turned from various behaviors, but not this. And I have asked God to do so in my heart, if it is indeed a sin.

Are you familiar with St. Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians concerning the thorn in his flesh, which he constantly prayed to God about? What was the Lord's response to him? "My grace is enough for you, My strength is made manifest in weakness."

We all have our struggles in this life. And we may endure in those struggles until the very day we breathe our last gasp for air. That's part of what it means to carry our cross. This life, this Christian life, is a cross. It is a cross we must carry. What that cross looks like is not going to be the same for everyone. But each of us must carry it.

If you are setting aside your own responsibility to take up your cross because you are waiting for God to magically put a thought in your head, you are going to be waiting forever. There is no promise from God that He is going to do that. We have Christ's solemn promise that He will give us rest, for His yolk is easy; but it is still a cross--a painful cross. We still have to carry it; but it will not crush us or defeat us for we have Christ who brings us the comfort and mercy of His Gospel. That is the Christian life. That has always been the Christian life.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Billy93]

I suppose it's to the extent you're fantasizing.

Did you edit your OP so it's more wishy-washy?

I don’t think so?

Few things:
1.) Emphasis of the fantasizing should NOT be sex.

Where does it say that in the Bible? It doesn’t…

2.) We're called to be holy & live godly. Would God lust after girl after girl after girl fantasizing having sex w/ them? Probably not

Nowhere does the Bible say that God-given sexual desires and thinking sexual thoughts is unholy or ungodly. And to your question: If fantasizing is not sinful, then why not? Jesus enjoyed food and drink, and “lusted” to enjoy the Passover meal. If sexual fantasy is a normal part of God-given human nature and not a result of the Fall, then why do you act like there’s no way Jesus would have faced the same thoughts and temptations as other men do? He may have tried to avoid them so as not to get to the point of sin (covetousness), but that does not mean he never fantasized at all… Your entire frame of mind is operating from the idea that it is a sin, which is what has been ingrained in you by people who act like Matthew 5:27-28 refers to fantasizing when it does not.

3.) Yes, it's okay to dream about a girl if you'd like to get married, or date. If not, no, you probably shouldn't be doing it.

Where does it say that in the Bible?

4.) Yes, it's okay to lust after a girl when you're married to her.

Obviously. But again, it doesn’t specify that in the Bible. The Bible simply doesn’t address acceptable vs. unacceptable sexual fantasy; if it did, people would be using a more concrete verse than Matthew 5:27-28 (which again, doesn’t refer to fantasy) to make their argument.

5.) It doesn't matter if the word is lust or covet.

It absolutely does, if the go-to verse for the “Don’t lust” (as in “Don’t fantasize”) people is one that isn’t even talking about fantasizing. It is talking about coveting, which is beyond mere fantasizing.

6.) & not sure why you're calling my beliefs 'modern' when your teachers admit these are the teachings that have been taught for centuries???

Huh? I didn’t say your “beliefs” are modern; the modern idea of the word “lust” is that it refers to sexual fantasy. That is NOT what the word epithumeó meant in biblical times. You read the word “lust” in your Bible and associate it with the modern definition of the word lust, rather than use Scripture to find out what it actually meant. Romans 7:7 confirms that Jesus was talking about the 10th commandment. Well, the 10th commandment is different from simply fantasizing for a few minutes about someone...

These seem like fair & reasonable teachings to me, not misconstruing anything, & capable of following.

How is it not misconstruing anything? People are being taught that Matthew 5:27-28 refers to fantasizing sexually. It does not refer to that...

And we don't know David's extent of sinning. If you think he never sinned prior to taking action w/ Bathsheba, have I got a goldmine to sell you.

Never said he didn’t sin before. I said that God even gave David many wives - and not once was David admonished for simply imagining having sex with a woman. (In fact, nowhere in the Bible is that sin referred to.) My point was that David’s breaking of the 10th commandment occurred when he began to covet Bathsheba - as in, when he decided in his heart that he had to have her.

There is a distinct difference between simply thinking a sexual fantasy that you have no intention of going out and doing in real life - and actually craving someone sexually so much that you are planning to go commit the act with them. These are two totally different things; the former does not break the 10th commandment, while the latter does. Yet mainstream Christianity acts like it’s all the same thing. That’s incorrect.

And why are you laughing at all my comments? Not sure how that’s helpful, but okay.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Question to the OP, just as food for thought:

You are out in public and suddenly a miracle happens, you can hear what everyone around you is thinking and it's all very clear and distinguished.

As you walk by someone, you hear and see what's in their thoughts, and after they took one glance at you you are overwhelmed with their graphic thoughts about you. What they want to do to you, what they want you to do for them. How they want to touch you.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, that would make you deeply uncomfortable? Would you find that distasteful? Would you find that invasive? Violating?

Because I would.

And what does our Lord Jesus Christ say? "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is the Law and the Prophets."

What else does our Lord Jesus Christ say? That the Greatest Commandment includes "Love your neighbor as your self."

Treat others as you want to be treated.
Think about others as you want to be thought about.
Love, as you wish you were loved.
Give, as you wish it were given to you.

"Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace:
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy.

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive.
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen." - Prayer of St. Francis of Assissi

-CryptoLutheran