Is Lust Okay or Not

[I Art Laughing]

Wow.

Would God join me together with a liar? How about someone who was formerly married? (the Bible calls that adultery too) How about someone who had a fiance that they once lusted over? How about somebody that wasn't repentant about a fistfight that they got in back in kindergarten (a murderer)?

Given that approach I could really see how no marriage at all could ever be binding. I wonder why God even bothered saying He joins men and women in marriage and not just believers.

So if two unrepentant sinners get married does God count that as marriage or do they need to get remarried after one or both of them comes to the Lord?

 

[BigDaddy4]

Wow.

Would God join me together with a liar? How about someone who was formerly married? (the Bible calls that adultery too) How about someone who had a fiance that they once lusted over? How about somebody that wasn't repentant about a fistfight that they got in back in kindergarten (a murderer)?

Given that approach I could really see how no marriage at all could ever be binding. I wonder why God even bothered saying He joins men and women in marriage and not just believers.

So if two unrepentant sinners get married does God count that as marriage or do they need to get remarried after one or both of them comes to the Lord?

I think you are being a little extreme and legalistic in trying to make your point.

IMO, very little, if any at all, has been spoken about God's grace in this.

We all fall short of God's glory and it's His grace and mercy that brings us back to him.

 

[JanniGirl]

Marriage vows say not one thing about lying. And if you are marrying someone who is currently committing adultery and don't know about it -- yeah, I don't know that it's binding, necessarily.

Why do people get married? -- if one of the main reasons isn't so that they can have pure, undefiled sex, then I don't know why. If the sex is defiled because their spouse is a con-man(woman) and is habitually and unrepentantly committing adultery, then the premise of the marriage is void.

 

[LinkH]

Did God really join two into one when one of the two is actually bonding themselves to numerous other individuals through lust and sexual immorality? Legally, they may be married, but I don't think that God joined those two people together, necessarily.

Can you show me some scripture to back this idea up?

If you marry someone who is not forbidden to marry (e.g. your brother or sister) then the marriage is valid. God instituted marriage in Genesis. He doesn't have to approve each individual case to make it a 'real marriage.' The Jews Jesus pointed out the two shall be one flesh passage to weren't getting divine revelation every time they married. There is no scripture that says that if a woman marries a man who liked to look lustfully after women, they aren't really married. Hosea may not be the best example to fit your post, since he knew what he was getting in to, but he was still married to Gomer in spite of her activities.

I think it would be more helpful to young women to encourage them to do some serious 'due diligence' on potential mates before getting engaged, rather than giving them an escape clause that could cause them a lot of grief, and lead them into sin.

 

[I Art Laughing]

Marriage vows say not one thing about lying. And if you are marrying someone who is currently committing adultery and don't know about it -- yeah, I don't know that it's binding, necessarily.

Why do people get married? -- if one of the main reasons isn't so that they can have pure, undefiled sex, then I don't know why. If the sex is defiled because their spouse is a con-man(woman) and is habitually and unrepentantly committing adultery, then the premise of the marriage is void.

So unbelievers are unrepentant by nature right? Are any unbelievers married in God's sight? Do they have to repent and remarry when they come to Christ in order for their marriage to be valid?

 

[LinkH]

Consider these two scriptures together.

I Corinthians 6:16
18Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body.

Matthew 5
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

IMO, actually committing fornication is worse than looking with lust. He who commits fornication commits to fornication looks (feels, etc.) with lust, and also has sex. He (or she) commits two sins.

A married couple are one 'in body.' The heart belongs to the Lord. So does the body, but the scripture does not say that the wife, or husband, owns the other person's heart or mind. (The Bible says to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.)

Allowing for divorce for sins of the heart is trying to stretch our Lord Jesus' words far beyond what is written in the passage. Clearly, Jesus' teachings against a man divorcing His wife in the sermon on the mount are supposed to prevent divorce among those who obey His word. Trying to take His warning about lust in the same passage to give nearly anyone a right to divorce freely clearly runs against this.

Something else to notice is that this is Christ's commentary on the Law, what is known as the Law of Moses. The law of Moses makes no provision for a wife divorcing her husband. Jewish judges who believed a husband had neglected his duties to his wife (which were providing food, clothing and sex) would try to compel the man to give the wife a writing of divorcement. I seem to recall one case--that of Herodias-- who got some chief priests to approve her divorcing her husband-- but that isn't the best example.

The passage says,
Matthew 5
27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery:
28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

This is about a man divorcing his wife, not a woman divorcing her husband. The latter doesn't show up in the law Jesus is talking about, and it isn't mentioned in the verse. To try to stretch the sermon on the mount to give women a right to divorce their husbands over looking at a pretty woman in a restaurant is pretty ridiculous. Sure, the man may need to repent and also get some self-control, but you can't point to anything in the Bible that gives her a right to divorce him.

 

[JanniGirl]

Ah. But now it is you who is stretching things. Actually, quite a few guys on this forum have been stretching things. "It's not really adultery.", etc, etc. "It never says a wife can divorce her husband." -- It doesn't say she never can, either.

 

[LinkH]

Ah. But now it is you who is stretching things.

You. A woman who divorces her husband for looking with lust is using a much more liberal argument than some of the Jews Jesus disagreed with who developed complicated excuses and theological arguments to justify their sin. Leading women to commit adultery, physically, through divorce and remarriage, without Biblical justification, isn't a good thing.

Actually, quite a few guys on this forum have been stretching things. "It's not really adultery.", etc, etc. "It never says a wife can divorce her husband." -- It doesn't say she never can, either.

Looking at a woman to lust after her is really committing adultery 'in his heart.' that is what the passage says-- adultery in his heart. We don't put people to death or in prison for having murder in their heart. That would be an insane legal system to live under if administrated by people like ourselves. No one should get punished for murder unless they act on what is in their heart. We also shouldn't allow divorce for adultery in the heart.

What about other scriptures?

Romans 7
2For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

I Corinthians 7
10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:
11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife

(Notice the wife putting away is not even a topic for consideration in the verse. She could at most, leave, and that is forbidden. If she does, she should reconcile or remain unmarried.)

Considering the Biblical teaching against divorce, why would anyone want to re-interpret scripture to make it super-easy to divorce? What you are saying would make it far easier to divorce under Jesus' teaching than under the law of Moses. But that goes against Christ's teaching against divorce in the same passage and in Matthew 19. Jesus is against divorce for 'every cause.'

You could conceivably get two or three witnesses that prove that someone committed adultery. How are you going to prove that when a man looked with a woman, he was looking with lust? The Bible says man looks on the outward appearance, but man looks on the heart. Some sins are against the Lord.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Can you show me some scripture to back this idea up?

If you marry someone who is not forbidden to marry (e.g. your brother or sister) then the marriage is valid. God instituted marriage in Genesis. He doesn't have to approve each individual case to make it a 'real marriage.' The Jews Jesus pointed out the two shall be one flesh passage to weren't getting divine revelation every time they married. There is no scripture that says that if a woman marries a man who liked to look lustfully after women, they aren't really married. Hosea may not be the best example to fit your post, since he knew what he was getting in to, but he was still married to Gomer in spite of her activities.

I think it would be more helpful to young women to encourage them to do some serious 'due diligence' on potential mates before getting engaged, rather than giving them an escape clause that could cause them a lot of grief, and lead them into sin.

Try Romans 1. God lets people do what fulfills their desires. Doesn't mean he blesses it, or is a part of it.

Saying a few words at the justice of the peace (or similar setting) does not mean God created that marriage.

To follow your logic would assume that God created same-sex marriages.

 

[JanniGirl]

I guess I'm wondering why you'd come to the conclusion that it's "super easy" to divorce. This pretty much assumes that one is dedicated to lusting and sees it as a lifestyle. Why not simply go into marriage with the assumption that you're going to keep your vows and that your spouse is going to keep theirs? Then actually do it.

If you don't go around lusting (committing adultery) then you don't have to worry about "super easy" divorce.

 

[LinkH]

Try Romans 1. God lets people do what fulfills their desires. Doesn't mean he blesses it, or is a part of it.

Saying a few words at the justice of the peace (or similar setting) does not mean God created that marriage.

To follow your logic would assume that God created same-sex marriages.

God created the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, not same sex marriage. The idea that marriages are created by a vow is more consistent with justifying same sex marriage.

We should keep vows and not break them, if we make them. (Not that wedding vows are oaths sworn in the Old Testament sense. We should still keep our word.) But wedding vows do not make a marriage. In some cultures, including the ones presented in scripture, one could marry without wedding vows. And there are marital obligations that are not mentioned in the traditional English wedding vows most of us are familiar with.

Why would a marriage conducted by a justice of the peace be any less valid than a wedding performed in a church? Looking at scripture, there is no mention of elders/priests/bishops/pastors having authority to declare a couple man and wife. Marriages were legal transactions in the Old Testament. Boaz redeemed property from a close relative for another deceased relative and announced that with the transaction, Ruth became his wife. He had elders there as witnesses, not to validate his marriage. They were married and are in the lineage of Christ listed in Matthew. The modern 'Christian wedding' appears to be a Christianized cultural adaptation of the Roman wedding, which was originally performed before a pagan priest.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

Try Romans 1. God lets people do what fulfills their desires. Doesn't mean he blesses it, or is a part of it.

Saying a few words at the justice of the peace (or similar setting) does not mean God created that marriage.

To follow your logic would assume that God created same-sex marriages.

No you didn't read what Link said:

If you marry someone who is not forbidden to marry (e.g. your brother or sister) then the marriage is valid.​

See where it says "forbidden to marry". We are forbidden from sexual relations with members of the same sex, so Biblically speaking, we are forbidden from marrying members of the same sex. The same-sex marriages you speak of are not God ordained.

 

[k450ofu3k-gh-5ipe]

God created the institution of marriage between a man and a woman, not same sex marriage. The idea that marriages are created by a vow is more consistent with justifying same sex marriage.

We should keep vows and not break them, if we make them. (Not that wedding vows are oaths sworn in the Old Testament sense. We should still keep our word.) But wedding vows do not make a marriage. In some cultures, including the ones presented in scripture, one could marry without wedding vows. And there are marital obligations that are not mentioned in the traditional English wedding vows most of us are familiar with.

Why would a marriage conducted by a justice of the peace be any less valid than a wedding performed in a church? Looking at scripture, there is no mention of elders/priests/bishops/pastors having authority to declare a couple man and wife. Marriages were legal transactions in the Old Testament. Boaz redeemed property from a close relative for another deceased relative and announced that with the transaction, Ruth became his wife. He had elders there as witnesses, not to validate his marriage. They were married and are in the lineage of Christ listed in Matthew. The modern 'Christian wedding' appears to be a Christianized cultural adaptation of the Roman wedding, which was originally performed before a pagan priest.

Good post and explanation!

 

[LinkH]

I guess I'm wondering why you'd come to the conclusion that it's "super easy" to divorce. This pretty much assumes that one is dedicated to lusting and sees it as a lifestyle.

No it doesn't. It implies that a lot of people have looked with lust at least once, and that if they haven't it is easy to accuse the other person of having done it.

Btw, can you say you have never looked at a man with lust since you married (or a picture or video image of a man on TV)? Can you say you have never had hatred or spoken inappropriate words of anger in your life?

Why not simply go into marriage with the assumption that you're going to keep your vows and that your spouse is going to keep theirs? Then actually do it.

I've heard variants of wedding ceremonies that contain the phrase, 'and you only' in them. I don't think every traditional ceremony contains that. I don't believe most wedding vows in English culture forbid looking with lust at a member of the opposite sex. Wedding vows are not central to the discussion. The issue is this is a sin against God. Whether or not a couple has 'wedding vows' at their ceremony, or no matter what they say in those vows, looking with lust like Jesus taught against is a sin against God.

If you don't go around lusting (committing adultery) then you don't have to worry about "super easy" divorce.

Sure it would be super easy. If you have no way of proving your spouse has lusted anyway, and all you have to do is assert that it is the case to justify to yourself getting a divorce, that is 'super easy.'

And one doesn't have to have a spouse who 'goes around' looking with lust, since one time would be sufficient. All you have to do is just convince yourself your spouse has looked with lust at a member of the opposite sex, and then you have instant self-justification for divorce. If you don't worry about whether God approves-- as many don't-- that's super easy.

Jesus was talking to an audience in a society that divorced all too easily. (Sound familiar.) He pretty much outlawed divorce, with one exception-- an exception that only shows up in Matthew. His teaching against divorce was so strict that His own disciples said that if that were the case with a man and his wife, it is good for a man not to marry.

 

[JaneFW]

These concepts of people wilfully divorcing and LYING to say that "he looked with lust" are ridiculous. I have asked many times for one instance of that happening - just one - just proof of one time that happened. And nobody has had it, because it ain't happening. It's interesting, because in threads in the past, maybe 6 months ago, there were many here saying that it was sinful to assume that people were doing wrong, and to think the worst of them, and it was godly to assume the best. Guess that's all over and done with, eh, and ridiculous accusations of people "lusting" because they once saw a man or a woman are the order of the day.

Really. Ugh.

In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

 

[JanniGirl]

Actually it was good not to marry because marriage and children take the focus off of God; not because it would be hard to divorce. Wow!! No wonder all you can think about when divorce is mentioned is how much $$ alimony would cost you. It also explains the whole "easy" aspect you allude to. You seem to think that lust is a given within marriage and that a lifestyle of lusting unrepentantly is a christian's due.

And, no, I have not lusted since I got married. I'm not intent on breaking my covenant with God and my spouse.

 

[I Art Laughing]

I still have a point I would like addressed:

So if unbelievers are unrepentant by nature, are any unbelievers married in God's sight? Do they have to repent and remarry when they come to Christ in order for their marriage to be valid?

 

[I Art Laughing]

I think that the focus on one sin to the near exclusion of all others is definitely unbalancing to the Church as it is to many Christian marriages. It sets the table for all manner of discontent which I think contributes to divorce. Does the wife divorce him because he "checked out" the waitress at the restaurant, probably not. Does it cause her to be jealous and discontent? Does it create friction? Does it interfere with there intimacy? Do they get into arguments concerning lust and "addiction" and "unrepentant sin" because of it? Does ALL OF THAT eventually cause a divorce? Who knows for sure.

I think the lack of balance sets the table for discontent and divorce. I think unrealistic expectations of moral purity set the table for discontent and divorce. I think setting standards of behavior and righteousness that we know we can't keep ourselves is hypocrisy, I think people do that all the time.

 

[JanniGirl]

It depends on what the Lord leads them to do in their hearts.

When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.1 Corinthians 13:11-12

But for christians who enter into marriage, they should have already put those things behind them, especially adultery & sexual immorality -- if the marriage bed is truly to be undefiled.

 

[LinkH]

Actually it was good not to marry because marriage and children take the focus off of God; not because it would be hard to divorce. Wow!!

I was talking about the disciples reaction to Jesus' words, not Paul's comments on marriage in I Corinthians 7.

Matthew 19
8He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

No wonder all you can think about when divorce is mentioned is how much $$ alimony would cost you.

I thought you were responding to me. This is confusing. I don't recall bringing up alimony in our exchange. I may have mentioned it in some other thread when talking about how our culture makes divorce easy or in response to another poster.

It also explains the whole "easy" aspect you allude to. You seem to think that lust is a given within marriage and that a lifestyle of lusting unrepentantly is a christian's due.

Of course, no Christian should look at someone with lust. But it is awfully easy to accuse a man of doing that, even when he isn't. Even if a man were looking at inappropriate content, daily, you can't always prove he is looking with lust. I suppose a woman could say she has grounds for divorce because 'she just knows' that her husband is thinking about some other woman while he is sleeping with her.

Only God looks on the heart. That is why there is no hint in scripture whatsoever that it is acceptable to divorce your spouse because of your spouse's thoughts.

And, no, I have not lusted since I got married. I'm not intent on breaking my covenant with God and my spouse.

If you have never looked with lust at someone, that's a great testimony. Have you ever 'admired' a man's physical form since you married? I can't recall all the posters that said that 'admiration' was okay, but not lust.

You also have to realize that some men struggle with distinguishing between recognizing physical beauty and looking at it, and lust. Other men have such a low standard that they look and look and look and say they aren't sinning.

Also, have you ever harbored hatred or unforgiveness in your heart, or spoken insulting words in hatred?

Btw, how many years do you have to play the lust card to get a divorce? If a woman's husband ogled a woman at a restaurant once during their second year of marriage, do you think she is justified in getting a divorce 29 years later after all the kids leave the house?