Is he committing adultery with his own wife?

[mkgal1]

You've spent a lot of effort writing on how to define lust as opposed to love. I think it does matter how we understand words like lust and even certain words that are used to describe certain sins.

For example, if someone thinks any sexual desire is lust.......

I specifically began this entire conversation by making the distinction of love (natural sexual desire)....and lust (a distortion). I did that for the specific reason of not getting the two confused.

 

[LinkH]

My point was to illustrate that not knowing what 'sin words' mean can lead to confusion and damage people's lives.

 

[4Bear]

It is good that you brought up some scripture here, but the text does not say 'wife.' Honestly, that doesn't seem to make much sense, IMO, in light of how Paul refers to vessels elsewhere.

Right. The text says "vessel"

Biblically, "vessel" can be wife (1 Pet 3:7) and several Bible versions include the "wife" rendering.

Didn't look at all the Bible versions on Biblegateway but here are 4 with the "wife" option for "vessel"- observe the footnote in the NASB and ESV

 

[mkgal1]

My point was to illustrate that not knowing what 'sin words' mean can lead to confusion and damage people's lives.

If concepts are understood (and the main focus).....things like, "love is not arrogant.....love isn't rude.......love isn't selfish......love considers others, just as it considers itself (and God).....and we are to walk in this sort of love" then, how can *that* damage lives?

I've been using the one verse (2nd Timothy 3---"lovers of pleasure (lust) RATHER THAN lovers of God") as support of lust being possible in marriage.

 

[Avniel]

Adultery isn't the definition of lust.

All adultery *is* lust......not all lust is adultery.

Husbands are to love like Christ......right? Christ doesn't love in a selfish way that's opposed to God's will.

As I have said if a spouse get's into an argument with the other spouse and he or she see's their spouse get out of the shower or whatever and they think in their mind "hmmm they look good oh boy I can't wait for tonight" is that lust?

 

[LinkH]

If concepts are understood (and the main focus).....things like, "love is not arrogant.....love isn't rude.......love isn't selfish......love considers others, just as it considers itself (and God).....and we are to walk in this sort of love" then, how can *that* damage lives?

I've been using the one verse (2nd Timothy 3---"lovers of pleasure (lust) RATHER THAN lovers of God") as support of lust being possible in marriage.

If understanding sin wasn't important, why would so many pages be devoted to it in the Bible? Which did the Lord Jesus spend more pages talking about, love or greed?

I agree we have to understand love. But if we don't understand what God commands us and what is and what is not sin, then we may not love properly.

I know some parents say they don't want to push religion down their kids throats, and they will let their children decide when they grow up. And some of the parents who say that don't take their kids to church or teach them to pray.

What is love here? Teaching your kids about God, or not teaching your kids about God? If I look at Ephesians, I see that I am supposed to raise my children in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord. There are many other passages that encourage me to teach my children.

If I looked at I Corinthians 13 and interpreted it based on what I wanted to do, and I were the type to lay around lazily and not teach my kids, I could argue that I was being loving by giving them a choice. But if really 'rejoiced in the truth' then I would accept the truth that I have to be responsible and diligent to teach my kids. I would realize that this is part of being loving.

 

[4Bear]

And certain it is, that the woman is called the "weaker vessel" in 1 Peter 3:7, between which passage and this there seems to be some agreement. The same metaphor of a "vessel" is made use of in both; and as there, honour to be given to the weaker vessel, so here, a man's vessel is to be possessed in honour; and as there, husbands are to dwell with their wives according to knowledge so here, knowledge is required to a man's possessing his vessel aright. Now for a man to possess his vessel in this sense, is to enjoy his wife, and to use that power he has over her in a becoming manner; see 1 Corinthians 7:4, and which is here directed to "in sanctification and honour"; that is, in a chaste and honourable way; for marriage is honourable when the bed is kept undefiled; and which may be defiled, not only by taking another into it, and which is not possessing the wife in sanctification and honour, it is the reverse, for it is a breaking through the rules of chastity and honour; but it may even be defiled with a man's own wife, by using her in an unnatural way, or by any unlawful copulation with her; for so to do is to use her in an unholy, unchaste, wicked, and dishonourable manner; whereas possessing of her according to the order and course of nature, is by the Jews, in agreement with the apostle, called (u), , "a man's sanctifying himself", and is chaste, and honourable. And it may be observed, that the Jews use the same phrase concerning conjugal embraces as the apostle does here. One of their canons runs thus (w):

^^ Good find!

 

[Avniel]

If concepts are understood (and the main focus).....things like, "love is not arrogant.....love isn't rude.......love isn't selfish......love considers others, just as it considers itself (and God).....and we are to walk in this sort of love" then, how can *that* damage lives?

That isn't what is damaging but telling people if you act unloving towards a spouse and then desire them sexually you have lusted which is not true.

The fact is we all act unloving towards our spouses even the most healthy relationship people fall short in the love area(the action word I don't believe it's a feeling) all the time and then desire their spouse, which is natural and what God invented sex for. Telling people that they can lust after their spouse is taking a natural God given attraction, desire and want replacing it with shame and guilt.

If what you are saying is true(which I am 200% certain it is not) then every poster that is attracted to their spouse on this married forum has lusted after their spouse once.

 

[mkgal1]

If understanding sin wasn't important, why would so many pages be devoted to it in the Bible? Which did the Lord Jesus spend more pages talking about, love or greed?

Ummm.....I *never* said "understanding sin wasn't important" (or anything even close to that). I said I don't understand the obsession with making sure the "exact" sin label is placed on sinful behavior or attitudes.

For instance......lust can be called idolatry.....it can be called pride......it can be called arrogance.....it can be called selfishness......etc. Does it *really* matter if I call it lust or idolatry or even pride? All of those labels can't be confused with what is holy or good. That's the reason why lust needs to be separated out from genuine love----because they *aren't* both holy.

 

[Avniel]

^^ Good find!

I think that's what you were getting at with the porn. I do agree with you there are ways to unnaturally want your spouse things such as sodomy ect but two spouse's practicing and wanting natural sex with natural sexual desires can not lust after each other....would you agree.

 

[Avniel]

Ummm.....I *never* said "understanding sin wasn't important" (or anything even close to that). I said I don't understand the obsession with making sure the "exact" sin label is placed on sinful behavior or attitudes.

For instance......lust can be called idolatry.....it can be called pride......it can be called arrogance.....it can be called selfishness......etc. Does it *really* matter if I call it lust or idolatry or even pride?

Maybe not to me and links it wouldn't matter we get what your trying to say. Is it a sin to force or manipulate your spouse to have sex with you, of course. But saying that it is lust can affect new Christians that are newly wed in a negative manner.

 

[LinkH]

Mkgal1,

I'll acknowledge the fact that there can be different uses of the same word in different contexts. Are you saying that the way you are using lust is the same as the New Testament usage of the Greek epithumias? Is it the same type of lust Jesus warned about when He said that he that looks on a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart.

 

[4Bear]

I think that's what you were getting at with the porn. I do agree with you there are ways to unnaturally want your spouse things such as sodomy ect but two spouse's practicing and wanting natural sex with natural sexual desires can not lust after each other....would you agree.

Yes.

As I have said if a spouse get's into an argument with the other spouse and he or she see's their spouse get out of the shower or whatever and they think in their mind "hmmm they look good oh boy I can't wait for tonight" is that lust?

No. It's good. For one thing, it provides incentive to make up!

 

[Avniel]

Yes.



No. It's good. For one thing, it provides incentive to make up!

Me you and link are all on the same page.

 

[LinkH]

For instance......lust can be called idolatry.....it can be called pride......it can be called arrogance.....it can be called selfishness......etc. Does it *really* matter if I call it lust or idolatry or even pride? All of those labels can't be confused with what is holy or good. That's the reason why lust needs to be separated out from genuine love----because they *aren't* both holy.

Lust is not idolatry or fornication or adultery. Lust is the desire to sin. If one doesn't 'make provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof' then one avoids the sin those lusts would drive him to do.

 

[4Bear]

Me you and link are all on the same page.

Well, me and you anyway...

Link raises red flags

 

[Tropical Wilds]

I see this as being one of those "letter of" vs "spirit of" discussions. Everybody is trying to define, redefine, Biblically define, spiritually define, maritally define, and every other way attach some sort of meaning from everything from lust, love, marriage, sex...

The definition of lust is a strong, uncontrollable, sexual desire or appetite for another person. With that, can you lust after your spouse? Sure.

Of course lust, like everything else, has various meanings in various contexts. Just as when I say that I love my husband, my son, my house, and my favorite purse, I'm not describing the same feeling. Marital love, maternal love, love of security, love of what is appealing... It's all different. Just as when the Bible speaks of loving your neighbor, it's not a command to go out and have sex with them, the way lust is applied when it's a husband towards a wife, or vice versa. The matter is further complicated when we take spiritual definitions of words and compare them to their secular definitions.

I don't think, even in the crazy interpretation we're trying to coax out of that one verse, that it's even possible to begin and try with any sort of straight face that adultery has happened and now people will have sex between holes in sheets so as to not sin. I mean come on, this like the adult, Biblically supported version of the "if you love it so much, why don't you marry it?" chant that kids use in playgrounds. In it's most corrupt form I'm positive that lust in a marriage can create huge, gigantic issues in some cases, though none of those would be adultery with the image of one's spouse. An apple and an orange are both fruit, but to say I must be eating an apple when I'm actually eating an orange and blaming the assumption on the shared trait of them both being fruit is a little ridiculous.

 

[mkgal1]

Is it a sin to force or manipulate your spouse to have sex with you, of course. But saying that it is lust can affect new Christians that are newly wed in a negative manner.

How so?

God's truth and love brings forth life and freedom.

Sin brings death (even death of a marriage) and bondage.........so, why not call sin--"sin"?

ETA: I wouldn't *only* call that sin....or lust......I would also call that illegal (fortunately our laws acknowledge how wrong that is). I'm thinking that the behavior causes enough damage on its own----it doesn't really matter *what* it's called at that point.

 

[LinkH]

Well, me and you anyway...

Link raises red flags

It's pretty obvious that the Pentateuch and the New Testament treat husbands and wives a bit differently in the obligations and commandments given to them. Why should that raise a red flag? If you disagree with what I said, show me from scripture what your areas are for concern and I will consider them.

 

[Avniel]

How so?

God's truth and love brings forth life and freedom.

Sin brings death (even death of a marriage) and bondage.........so, why not call sin--"sin"?

Because other then sodomy and porn things like that the marriage bed can not be defiled. You defile your marriage bed by entering into sexual desires that are unnatural. You have no scripture supporting what your saying, it is just your personal theology. I admit the issues you are bringing up are sins but they are not lust.