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

[Fervent]

Interesting point! However, is it not a valid point that Paul uses the same word in Romans 7:7 (which refers to covetousness)? In the KJV translation of that verse, it highlights how the word is used for both “lust” and “covet.”

The context of Paul's statements shift the word, but the point I was making is a general one about a fallacious way to look at language. Think about the word "set" which is the English word with the most definitions, and say it's used in a context of a sports match in one place and in the context of putting something down in another. Now let's say we're working in another language in which the equivalent words have no overlap, neither one can appropriately be reflected by a single word. It would be incorrect to look and go "they use the same word, so the word we've translated must be appropriate in both." Language is dynamic and what a word means is dictated by the context it is found in rather than the specific word used so looking at how its used in a different context doesn't necessarily inform us what it means in the one under study. We can gather data and see how it is used throughout a variety of texts to develop a semantic range, but once that range is developed narrowing down the actual meaning requires looking to the context.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Luther's Large Catechism, on the 9th and 10th Commandments

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.

These two commandments are given quite exclusively to the Jews; nevertheless, in part they also concern us. For they do not interpret them as referring to unchastity or theft, because these are sufficiently forbidden above. They also thought that they had kept all those when they had done or not done the external act. Therefore God has added these two commandments in order that it be esteemed as sin and forbidden to desire or in any way to aim at getting our neighbor’s wife or possessions

...

And yet we pretend to be godly, know how to adorn ourselves most finely and conceal our rascality, resort to and invent adroit devices and deceitful artifices (such as now are daily most ingeniously contrived) as though they were derived from the law codes; yea, we even dare impertinently to refer to it, and boast of it, and will not have it called rascality, but shrewdness and caution.

In this lawyers and jurists assist, who twist and stretch the law to suit it to their cause, stress words and use them for a subterfuge, irrespective of equity or their neighbor’s necessity. And, in short, whoever is the most expert and cunning in these affairs finds most help in law, as they themselves say: Vigilantibus iura subveniunt [that is, The laws favor the watchful].

This last commandment therefore is given not for rogues in the eyes of the world, but just for the most pious, who wish to be praised and be called honest and upright people, since they have not offended against the former commandments, as especially the Jews claimed to be, and even now many great noblemen, gentlemen, and princes. For the other common masses belong yet farther down, under the Seventh Commandment, as those who are not much concerned whether they acquire their possessions with honor and right."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[PaulCyp1]

Because "mainstream Christianity" says something, doesn't mean they're right? Well, that would depend on (1) your definition of "mainstream Christianity", and (2) your familiarity with the Bible. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ clearly demonstrated that He was God, by constantly doing things only God could do. The Bible tells us that He, God, founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That leaves three possibilities: (1) Jesus lied; (2) Jesus didn't know what He was talking about; or (3) When the Church He founded declares something to be true, God Himself has declared it to be true. That one Church does not define "lust" as "sexual attraction". Sexual attraction is a creation of God, designed to assure the continuation of the human species. Lust means viewing other people as mere objects I can use to satisfy my own desires.

 

[Billy93]

Noticing a member of the opposite sex is attractive is normal. Thinking about going to bed with her before the wedding ceremony is the lust that got people in trouble. Prostitutes and the inappropriate content industry profited from people indulging in fantasies of recreational sex.

One church does not allow birth control, another is silent on the issue. Fornication produced single mother families. Even the thought of doing the act of short term pleasure of fornication is lewd, lustful and irreverent. A man intended to marry his lover, but abandoned her instead.

Where does the Bible say that imagining sex is a sin?

 

[Billy93]

We tend to look at lust in a sexual way, but lust usually means desire.

Lust/desire is only a problem when we are following the lust/desires of the flesh, and lusting/desiring things that belong to other people.

If you are lusting/desiring another man’s wife, you are also guilty of coveting, because God commands us not to desire what belongs to our neighbor, whether his wife, animals or house etc.

You have a pretty good grasp on this. Kudos.

Thanks for the comment. I guess one point I would make/argue is that there is a difference between seeing a neighbor’s fancy car and simply imagining what it would be like to take a drive in it, and actually obsessing over the car and planning to steal it/drive it without their permission. Mainstream Christians seem to act like imagination is somehow on the same level as an insatiable, obsessive desire to have something - a desire which can quickly spiral out of control into the individual actually physically taking it. I frankly think it’s kind of ridiculous to equate two such different frames of mind, and try and lump them all together as sin. I still think the David & Bathsheba is a great example to highlight this: When did his lust/covetousness sin actually occur? Was it when he first had a basic sexual fantasy about her, or rather when he decided that he must have her in real life? I would argue that there’s a pretty big difference between those two (and that the sin is clearly the latter), yet people would have us believe they are somehow both the same…??? Just doesn’t make sense.

There are plenty of people who have “imagined” all sorts of things (not even necessarily sexual), yet never let their imagination progress to the point of what I would say is biblical covetousness. And think about it: If covetousness meant the same as simple desire, then how would men have ever bought and sold goods without breaking the 10th? For example, a man doesn’t buy another man’s donkey from him unless he first desires it… So simply imagining that something would be nice to have, is not covetousness.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Jas 1:15
each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it has run its course, brings forth death.

 

[Billy93]

Because "mainstream Christianity" says something, doesn't mean they're right? Well, that would depend on (1) your definition of "mainstream Christianity", and (2) your familiarity with the Bible. The Bible tells us that Jesus Christ clearly demonstrated that He was God, by constantly doing things only God could do. The Bible tells us that He, God, founded one Church, said it was to remain one, and promised that one Church "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth", and "Whatsoever you bind upon Earth is bound in Heaven", and "He who hears you hears Me". That leaves three possibilities: (1) Jesus lied; (2) Jesus didn't know what He was talking about; or (3) When the Church He founded declares something to be true, God Himself has declared it to be true. That one Church does not define "lust" as "sexual attraction". Sexual attraction is a creation of God, designed to assure the continuation of the human species. Lust means viewing other people as mere objects I can use to satisfy my own desires.

…Huh? Where did I ever argue that Jesus Christ is not God? Where did I argue virtually any of the things you brought up?

Oh, “one true church.” Yeah, I have no desire to engage with you because I don’t ascribe to Catholic nonsense, sorry.

 

[Billy93]

Jas 1:15
each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. 15Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it has run its course, brings forth death.

Do you realize you are further proving my point? The Greek word there is the same… Paul confirms in Romans that it means OT covetousness. You are still reading “lust” and mentally hearing that to mean “any and all sexual fantasizing.”

 

[The Liturgist]

And as we should know well by now, just because mainstream Christianity says something, doesn't mean they're right;

Actually, my experience is that the opposite is true, if by mainstream Christianity, we are excluding the liberal mainline Protestant denominations like the Episcopal Church, the ELCA, most American congregations of the UMC, the PCUSA, the UCC and other churches which have deviated from normative Christianity on issues ranging from sexual morality to the deity of our Lord, and instead are including the confessing, traditional movements in those denominations, as well as conservative denominations that broke away or are of similar faith, for example, the ACNA, the PCA, the LCMS, the OPC, the WELS, and the SBC. And then, if we combine the views of those traditionalist Protestants, with the historical perspective of Protestants since the ill fated Czech Reformation in the 15th century under St. Jan Hus, and the theology of the four ancient Christian denominations: the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East and the Roman Catholic Church. Then, we look at the writings of the Church Fathers, their homilies (sermons), the ancient canon law, ancient liturgical texts, and the oldest manuscripts of the canonical Bible, as well as the oldest manuscripts recording the discussions that led to the canonical Bible itself, and from this, we can understand the early church.

And then we compare all of this with scripture, and we tend to get a consistent result on most issues, because most Nicene Christians, that is to say, those who are members of churches which believe in the Trinity and the other doctrines of the Nicene Creed, practice baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and celebrate the Lord’s Supper, have similar beliefs which accord with the teachings of our Lord, and the prophecies about Him in the Old Testament, and the faith and praxis of the earliest Christian churches in the first and second centuries.

we ultimately need to look to Scripture and make sure we're properly understanding the meaning of the words.

When people do that in an effort to second-guess the doctrines of “mainstream Christianity,” they generally have already made up their mind and are going to read scripture eisegetically, with confirmation bias.

This is why the study of and obedience to the doctrines of mainstream Christianity is so important. The universal faith, as the fourth century theologian Vincent of Lerins said, is that which has always been believed everywhere and by every one. We want to find that universal Christianity, which is objectively inspired by God, and which can be evaluated objectively. The doctrines are clear, well known and generally agreed upon. And they do not condone dubious sexual morality.

The early church would impose penances including denial of communion on adulterers and sodomites for decades, or until the penitent was nearing death. The modern church is much less severe, but the definition of sin hasn’t changed, because, as the Bible says, God does not change.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Do you realize you are further proving my point? The Greek word there is the same… Paul confirms in Romans that it means OT covetousness. You are still reading “lust” and mentally hearing that to mean “any and all sexual fantasizing.”

Do you realise you are magnifying a linguistic technicality and missing the message of perusing Holiness rather than self gratification.

 

[dqhall]

Where does the Bible say that imagining sex is a sin?

Matthew 5:28 (WEB) but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[Tree of Life]

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

There are married couples that make inappropriate content. Your interpretation would allow for a Christian to watch inappropriate content like this and touch to it. Do you agree that your interpretation allows for this and are you comfortable with that implication?

 

[Tree of Life]

A few people exegetical comments on the Matthew passage that are of interest...

1. When Jesus talks about lust he is not expounding the coveting command. He is expounding the adultery command. He begins by saying: “you’ve heard it was said that ye shall not commit adultery.” Jesus is interested in how deeply that particular command governs our lives. He says that the command can be broken not just by behavior, but also by looking and by intention.
2. Applying your same method to the other commands that Jesus similarly expounds leaves us with some absurdities. For example, when Jesus expounds the fifth commandment he says that not only are we forbidden to murder, but anger and abusive language are also condemned by the fifth commandment. But using your interpretive method, we would expect Jesus to say that planning to murder someone is also forbidden by the fifth commandment. But he goes much deeper than that. Being angry with your brother violates the fifth commandment.

 

[aiki]

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.”

And by what process of thought would a guy arrive at the idea of seducing another man's wife? Would he just start up, suddenly, out-of-the-blue, and say to himself, "I'm gonna seduce that guy's wife!" Of course not. He'd work up to such a thing, a process involving the sort of sexual fantasizing you're allowing for in your post. This fantasizing - "evil imagining" the Bible calls it - may not be the single factor leading to adulterous sin, but it very definitely contributes to it and therefore ought to be carefully avoided! It seems like a lot of hair-splitting that you're doing, condemning adultery but accommodating the thinking that brings one to adultery. Really, I thought of Occam's Razor when I read your OP.

Do you honestly think God is approving of you using a "hot woman" as fodder for your sexual fantasies? How is that not the very thing one does with inappropriate content? Are you allowing for a Christian man to indulge in looking at inappropriate content? Goodness! You say you're a "conservative" Christian man, but your rationalization of immoral imaginings suggest otherwise!

Philippians 4:8
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

 

[Billy93]

Matthew 5:28 (WEB) but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

…Did you not read my initial post or the links within? It seems like you don’t understand the argument, and frankly, interactions like this are exactly the sort of thing that makes me more and more convinced I’m right.

Here, to paraphrase:

Me: “Matthew 5 has been misinterpreted: Where it says ‘lust’ it actually meant something different back then; it doesn’t simply mean fantasizing.”

You: “Fantasizing is wrong.”

Me: “Where does the Bible say fantasizing is wrong?”

You: [Posts Matthew 5 passage]

…See what I mean? It’s totally circular logic. The whole premise of my argument is that Matthew 5 is not talking about fantasizing… so why are you using the exact same Matthew 5 passage as your counterargument?

 

[Billy93]

Do you realise you are magnifying a linguistic technicality and missing the message of perusing Holiness rather than self gratification.

It’s not a linguistic technicality, though. It’s extremely important for us to understand what Scripture actually meant when it was written, and you are glossing over the possibility that maybe it actually means something other than what you’ve always thought. If the word used in Matthew 5:27-28 is the same concept as OT covetousness, then we should strive to understand what OT covetousness meant, do you not agree?

Also, where exactly does the Bible say we are not allowed to enjoy anything? What you’re talking about is asceticism. Am I not allowed to enjoy the taste of a good burger? Am I not allowed to enjoy listening to music? Nowhere does the Bible say that spending a few moments every once in a while imagining sex is contrary to “pursuing Holiness,” just as it doesn’t say that enjoying any of my other 5 senses is contrary to it. I still don’t understand how people can act as though someone who imagines sex for a few minutes is “ruled by the flesh” or doesn’t have God at the center of his life, yet they can spend many more minutes doing or thinking about virtually anything else and that’s okay. It doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Billy93]

A few people exegetical comments on the Matthew passage that are of interest...

1. When Jesus talks about lust he is not expounding the coveting command. He is expounding the adultery command. He begins by saying: “you’ve heard it was said that ye shall not commit adultery.” Jesus is interested in how deeply that particular command governs our lives. He says that the command can be broken not just by behavior, but also by looking and by intention.
2. Applying your same method to the other commands that Jesus similarly expounds leaves us with some absurdities. For example, when Jesus expounds the fifth commandment he says that not only are we forbidden to murder, but anger and abusive language are also condemned by the fifth commandment. But using your interpretive method, we would expect Jesus to say that planning to murder someone is also forbidden by the fifth commandment. But he goes much deeper than that. Being angry with your brother violates the fifth commandment.

But anger and desire are treated very differently in Scripture… For instance, God doesn't condemn righteous anger in the moment, but he does condemn holding on to anger which will then turn into bitterness and holding grudges.

"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" Ephesians 4:26

So, we ought to be filled with righteous anger when a person violates the God’s laws, especially when they hurt the innocent or threaten our families. But the point is we cannot hold on to anger. We must let it go.

Desire itself is not sinful. Desire only becomes sinful lust/covetousness when we have a wrong desire, when we desire to take or use someone or something in an unlawful manner that is sinful desire.

So again, the Bible treats anger differently than desire: It tells us not to hold on to anger, but it never tells us we cannot hold on to desire. As long as a natural and good desire like sexual desire does not turn into a sinful covetous desire (e.g. to entice a woman into having sex with us outside of marriage), then there is no problem.

 

[Billy93]

There are married couples that make inappropriate content. Your interpretation would allow for a Christian to watch inappropriate content like this and touch to it. Do you agree that your interpretation allows for this and are you comfortable with that implication?

It is up to the couple to decide; I agree that my interpretation could allow for it.

 

[Billy93]

Having a carnal mind is the issue. It's an indicator that we haven't truly let go of our sin. Paul says it best in Romans 8.

Romans 8:1-8 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.​

Someone is “carnally minded” for thinking about sex for only a few minutes out of a day - and not necessarily even every day? How are they “carnally minded”? Do I “walk after the flesh” when I enjoy other physical things in life, like good food, good music, etc? Is it wrong to pleasure my senses, period? Comments like this make it sound as though to have any enjoyment in anything at all, means you are “led by the carnal mind” - it’s preposterous.

“condemned sin in the flesh”

Imagining sex is not a “sin in the flesh.” Someone who is carnally minded, is someone who is led to wantonly commit acts of sexual immorality. They live to have sex, and they don’t care that it’s wrong or an idol. But spending a few minutes thinking of something (or enjoying anything else that is not sinful) does not mean you “walk after the flesh.”

“Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God”

Fantasizing does not break the law of God…

 

[Billy93]

There's a lot of nuance to this discussion, and it makes sense to understand the surrounding context of Matthew 5:27-30 as well, for example, vv. 21-26. What thought(s) below would you say fall(s) under what Matthew 5:21-26 condemns?

1. "Ugh, he's angering!"
2. "Ugh, he's angering! Imagine how good it'd feel to just pound the life outta this fool right now!"
3. "Ugh, he's angering! I know he goes to location A at 8:00 PM. I'll go there tonight and kill him."

Similarly, what thought(s) below would you say fall(s) under what Matthew 5:27-30 condemns?

1. "Wow, she's attractive!"
2. "Wow, she's attractive! Imagine if she were in my bedroom, and..."
3. "Wow, she's attractive! I know her husband's traveling. I'll go to her house tonight and..."

In both examples, 1. is the raw emotion, 2. is fantasizing, and 3. is planning to act. Which do you say fall(s) under Jesus' condemnation in the Sermon on the Mount?

First off, I think you’re missing a step in each of those:

1. "Ugh, he's angering!"
2. "Ugh, he's angering! Imagine how good it'd feel to just pound the life outta this fool right now!"
3. "Ugh, he's angering! I desire to murder him."
4. "Ugh, he's angering! I know he goes to location A at 8:00 PM. I'll go there tonight and kill him."

Similarly, what thought(s) below would you say fall(s) under what Matthew 5:27-30 condemns?

1. "Wow, she's attractive!"
2. "Wow, she's attractive! Imagine if she were in my bedroom, and..."
3. "Wow, she's attractive! I desire to entice her to having sex with me outside of marriage..."
4. "Wow, she's attractive! I know her husband's traveling. I'll go to her house tonight and..."

The desire to murder someone, or the desire to entice a woman into sex outside of marriage comes before the concrete planning of it; that is also sin as well.

Now, as for your point about anger… I will repost what I said to another commenter:

Anger and desire are treated very differently in Scripture… For instance, God doesn't condemn righteous anger in the moment, but he does condemn holding on to anger which will then turn into bitterness and holding grudges.

"Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath" Ephesians 4:26

So, we ought to be filled with righteous anger when a person violates the God’s laws, especially when they hurt the innocent or threaten our families. But the point is we cannot hold on to anger. We must let it go.

Desire itself is not sinful. Desire only becomes sinful lust/covetousness when we have a wrong desire, when we desire to take or use someone or something in an unlawful manner that is sinful desire.

So again, the Bible treats anger differently than desire: It tells us not to hold on to anger, but it never tells us we cannot hold on to desire. As long as a natural and good desire like sexual desire does not turn into a sinful covetous desire (e.g. to entice a woman into having sex with us outside of marriage), then there is no problem.