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

[bèlla]

Even if you know they're not married isn't it still crossing a line?
I mean Jesus focuses specifically on adultery in those verses but wouldn't fornication in their heart be just as much of a sin?
It still objectifies, and it still makes a person see women as a whole with less respect than they should.

Absolutely. I responded to the example the OP provided but the same holds true otherwise.

~bella

 

[Norbert L]

“But so-and-so imagined sexual relations with the attractive woman, and God was angered”

At what point does God become angered with David and Bathsheba?

 

[Kilk1]

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.

Regarding Thought 2 in the lists, do you believe such falls under the condemnation of Matthew 5:21-26 and of Matthew 5:27-30? Also, I may need clarification on how strong the meaning is of "I desire to..." in Thought 3. Does it mean, "It'd sure be nice if I could..." (softer), or, "If an opportunity arises, I will..." (stronger). Thanks!

 

[ViaCrucis]

It would be beneficial for a informed, and constructive dialogue as to what the Bible says if you were to articulate your views clearly.

Here’s the passage of your prose presently under discussion.

Which means, absolutely nothing as it could mean anything given the ambiguity. It is a nightmare to figure out what could possibly mean, in your mind, the phrase of “our desires are turned inward, rather than outward” and “we are seeking to gratify ourselves and failing to live for the sake of our neighbor.”

Alright, then allow me to clarify terms.

According to traditional Christian teaching, at least in the West, human beings inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. This Original Sin is present in us as concupiscence--"desire". Selfish desire. It means that the passions, or desires, of the flesh are deformed, misshapen, "depraved"--literally "bent" "crooked" "broken". From the Latin depravare; from the Latin prefix de meaning "completely" and pravus meaning "crooked" or "bent". Hence the root of man's depravity is sin, sinfulness.

The human person born in a state of sinfulness.

The Scriptures which support this include Romans 3:10-18, Romans 3:23, and Romans 5:12.

Humans are born sinful. To be born sinful means to have concupiscience--passions directed and dominated by sin.

When I say "our desires are turned inward, rather than outward" I mean that our desire is curved inward upon ourselves, to serve ourselves. The will and desire of fallen man is himself. That is meant by homo incurvatus in se.

This is what St. Paul refers to when he speaks of "the flesh".

E.g. Ephesians 2:1-3, Galatians 5:24

To be perfectly frank I am rather taken aback by the hostility with which you chose to respond; and the seeming hostility to what is actually quite rudimentary Christian teaching--at least in the West. Hence my initial responses being somewhat flippant.

The words I chose in my language wasn't pillowy purple prose--but deliberate theological wording based upon two thousand years of biblical, traditional, and orthodox Christian teaching.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oh you think the phrase to be unambiguous? Really?

So, let’s begin. First, the phrase has long been debated as to the extent of its meaning. Jesus clarified by way of example but may not have been in anyway exhaustive.

We have plenty of Biblical examples where “love your neighbor as yourself” doesn’t conflict with certain institutions and practices we today consider immoral and unloving.

One such institution is chattel slavery. Whatever the great command “love your neighbor as yourself” meant and means, it doesn’t prohibit chattel slavery and other kinds of slavery. Why? Because the Law did not prohibit slavery but instead acknowledged and permitted its existence. Leviticus 25:44-46. Exodus 21:2-6 (There are more verses pertaining to slavery).

Now, some in Judaism have construed the OT command of love your neighbor as yourself to apply only to Jews/Hebrews. “Lev 19:17 You shall not hate your brother in your heart; you shall reprove your kinsman, and not incur guilt because of him. 19:18 You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor like yourself; I am YHWH.”

Then there’s the issue of what the word “kamokha” means. Does it mean “like yourself” or “one who is like you”?

Now, I have an understanding of what the phrase likely could mean, based on the research. Do you?

Well, here's how St. John Chrysostom comments,

"Wherefore, having said, "The first and great commandment is, You shall love the Lord your God," he added, "and the second — (He leaves it not in silence, but sets it down also)— is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." And see how with nearly the same excellency He demands also this. For as concerning God, He says, "with all your heart:" so concerning your neighbor, "as yourself," which is tantamount to, "with all your heart."

Yea, and if this were duly observed, there would be neither slave nor free, neither ruler nor ruled, neither rich nor poor, neither small nor great; nor would any devil then ever have been known: I say not, Satan only, but whatever other such spirit there be, nay, rather were there a hundred or ten thousand such, they would have no power, while love existed. For sooner would grass endure the application of fire than the devil the flame of love. She is stronger than any wall, she is firmer than any adamant; or if you can name any material stronger than this the firmness of love transcends them all. Her, neither wealth nor poverty overcomes: nay, rather there would be no poverty, no unbounded wealth, if there were love, but the good parts only from each estate. For from the one we should reap its abundance, and from the other its freedom from care: and should neither have to undergo the anxieties of riches, nor the dread of poverty." - St. John Chrysostom, Homily on 1 Corinthians, 32.11

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Daniel Marsh]

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

"Thou shalt not commit adultery (ou moiceusei). These quotations (verses Mark 21 27 33 ) from the Decalogue ( Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5:1 ) are from the Septuagint and use ou and the future indicative (volitive future, common Greek idiom). In Deuteronomy 5:43 the positive form, volitive future, occurs (agaphsei). In Deuteronomy 5:41 the third person (dotw) singular second aorist active imperative is used. In Deuteronomy 5:38 no verb occurs."

"In his heart (en th kardiai autou). Not just the centre of the blood circulation though it means that. Not just the emotional part of man's nature, but here the inner man including the intellect, the affections, the will. This word is exceedingly common in the New Testament and repays careful study always. It is from a root that means to quiver or palpitate. Jesus locates adultery in the eye and heart before the outward act. Wunsche (Beitrage) quotes two pertinent rabbinical sayings as translated by Bruce: "The eye and the heart are the two brokers of sin." "Passions lodge only in him who sees." Hence the peril of lewd pictures and plays to the pure."

Matthew 5:28 Commentary - Robertson's Word Pictures of the New Testament

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Psalm 66:18
If I had cherished evil in my heart, my Lord would not have listened.

1 Kings 8:33
If your people Israel are defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, but then they change their hearts and lives, give thanks to your name, and ask for mercy before you at this temple,

2 Chronicles 6:24
If your people Israel are defeated by an enemy because they have sinned against you, but then they change their hearts, give thanks to your name, and ask for mercy in your presence at this temple,

Job 1:5
When the days of the feast had been completed, Job would send word and purify his children. Getting up early in the morning, he prepared entirely burned offerings for each one of them, for Job thought, Perhaps my children have sinned and then cursed God in their hearts. Job did this regularly.

Matthew 15:19
Out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adultery, sexual sins, thefts, false testimonies, and insults.

Mark 7:21
“It’s from the inside, from the human heart, that evil thoughts come: sexual sins, thefts, murders,

Sirach 38:10
Stay far from error, direct your hands rightly, and cleanse your heart from all sin.

Job 31:1

I’ve made a covenant with my eyes; how could I look at a virgin?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Susanna
Common English Bible
1 A man named Joakim once lived in Babylon. 2 His wife Susanna, Hilkiah’s daughter, was very beautiful and honored the Lord. 3 Her parents were good people, and they taught their daughter according to the Law from Moses.

4 Joakim was very rich, and he had a large private garden next to his home. The Jews came to him because he was the most honored among them. 5 Two elders among the people had been appointed as judges that year. It was about them that the Lord had spoken: “Lawless disorder[a] has come out of Babylon, from elders, from judges who were supposed to guide the people.” 6 These men spent a lot of time at Joakim’s house, and all the people with lawsuits came to them.

7 When the people went away in the middle of the day, Susanna would walk around her husband’s private garden. 8 Every day the two elders would see her coming in and walking around, and they desired her sexually. 9 They ceased thinking clearly, neither looking to heaven nor caring about justice. 10 Both of them thought about her and nothing else, but they didn’t tell each other their craving, 11 because they were ashamed to admit how they desired her and wanted to be with her. 12 But they were on the lookout every day, eager to get a glimpse of her.

13 One said to the other, “It’s time for lunch. Let’s go home.” They split up and left, 14 but doubling back, they met again at the same place. They started asking each other for an explanation, and so each confessed his desire. Then they plotted together for a time when they would be able to find her alone.

15 When they were watching closely for the right moment, Susanna came by, just as she had the day before and the day before that, alone with her two female servants. She wanted to bathe in the privacy of the garden, since it was hot. 16 No one was there except the two elders, who were hidden and spying on her. 17 She said to her female servants, “Please bring me some olive oil and lotion and lock the gates so I can bathe.” 18 They did just what she said. They locked the gates to the garden and went through the side doors into the house to fetch the things she had wanted. They didn’t see the elders, since they were hiding.

19 When the female servants went out, the two elders stood up and ran at her. 20 They said, “Look, the gates are locked, and nobody can see us. We desire you, so do what we want and have sex with us. 21 If you don’t, we’ll swear that you were meeting with a young man, and that’s why you sent your female servants away.”

22 Susanna groaned. “I’m trapped! If I do this, it’s death; but if I don’t, I still won’t escape your plotting. 23 But I’d rather not do this and fall into your hands, than sin in the Lord’s sight.” 24 So Susanna screamed, and at the same time the two elders called out. 25 One of them ran and opened the gates to the garden.

26 When people in the house heard the shouting in the garden, they ran out through the side doors to see what had happened to Susanna. 27 When the two elders had their say, the servants were very ashamed because nothing like this had ever been said about Susanna.

28 The next day when the people came to her husband Joakim, the two elders came too, full of their immoral scheme to have Susanna killed. They said in front of the people, 29 “Call Susanna, Hilkiah’s daughter, who is married to Joakim.” So they called her in. 30 She came with her parents, her children, and all her relatives.

31 Now Susanna was elegant, beautiful in appearance. 32 The criminals ordered the veil that she was wearing to be removed so they could soak in her beauty. 33 But her household and all who saw her were crying. 34 Upon taking the stand in front of everybody, the elders laid their hands on Susanna’s head to give testimony.[c] 35 But she looked up to heaven while crying because she trusted the Lord.

36 The elders said, “While we were walking around the large garden by ourselves, this woman came in with two female servants. She locked the gates of the garden and sent away the female servants. 37 Then a young man, who had been hiding, came and lay with her. 38 We were in a corner of the garden, and when we saw this lawless act, we went running to them. 39 We saw them having sex, but we couldn’t hold on to the man because he was stronger than we were. He opened the gates and ran away. 40 So we grabbed this woman and asked who the young man was, 41 but she wouldn’t tell us. To this we swear.”

The assembly believed them because they were the people’s elders and judges. So they sentenced Susanna to death.

42 Susanna screamed out: “Eternal God, you know what is hidden; you see everything before it happens. 43 You know they’ve lied in this court about me! Look, I’m going to die, although I didn’t do any of the things these men accuse in their malice!”

44 The Lord heard her cry. 45 As she was being led away to die, God stirred up the holy spirit of a young man named Daniel. 46 He shouted out loud, “I’m innocent of this woman’s blood!”

47 All the people turned to him and asked, “What are you saying?!”

48 He stood among them and said, “Are you so stupid, Israelites, that you’ve sentenced an Israelite woman to death without cross-examining or finding the facts? 49 Go back to court: these men have given false testimony against her.”

50 Everyone rushed back. The other elders said to Daniel, “Sit here with us and advise us, since God has given you the status of an elder.”

51 Daniel told them, “Separate them from each other, and I’ll cross-examine them.” 52 When they had been separated from each other, he called in one of the judges and said to him, “The sins you did earlier are catching up to you now at the end of a long evil life. 53 You judged unfairly, sentencing the innocent to death, and letting the guilty go, even though the Lord says, ‘You will not sentence innocent and good people to death.’ 54 Now then, if you really saw this woman, tell me this. Under what tree did you see them having sex?” He said, “Under a clove tree.”

55 Daniel said, “Right! You lied! It’s on your own head! Already God’s angel has orders to cleave you down the middle!”

56 Then setting that one aside, he ordered them to bring in the other judge. He said to him, “You’re a Canaanite and not from Judah. Beauty seduced you, and sexual desire twisted your mind. 57 You treated women from Israel this way, and they had sex with you because they were afraid of you. But this woman from Judah wouldn’t tolerate your lawless immorality. 58 So tell me now: Under what tree did you catch them having sex with each other?” He said, “Under a yew.”[d]

59 Daniel said to him, “Right! You lied too! It’s on your own head. God’s angel waits with his sword to hew you down the middle, to destroy both of you.”

60 Then the whole assembly started shouting out praises to the God who saves those who hope in him. 61 They rose up against the two elders, because Daniel had shown from their own words that they were false witnesses. They treated them in the same way that they had plotted to treat their neighbor. 62 By following the Law from Moses, they killed them. Innocent blood was saved that day. 63 Hilkiah and his wife gave thanks that their daughter Susanna had not been found guilty of a shameful crime. Her husband Joakim and all their relatives also gave thanks. 64 From that day Daniel was honored among the people.

Footnotes
Susanna 1:5 Or lawlessness
Susanna 1:22 Or hands
Susanna 1:34 Gk lacks to give testimony.
Susanna 1:58 Or evergreen oak

 

[Daniel Marsh]

2 Samuel 11
New International Version
David and Bathsheba
11 In the spring, at the time when kings go off to war, David sent Joab out with the king’s men and the whole Israelite army. They destroyed the Ammonites and besieged Rabbah. But David remained in Jerusalem.

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”

 

[RDKirk]

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.

Yes, but the OP literally places the term "fantasy" on the same side as a mere appreciation of beauty.

I think a "fantasy" goes too far. Sure, I can notice that a particular woman is an wonderful example of God's design...and in my next thought realize that the entire day is also a wonderful example of God's excellent design. And that would be okay.

But to get involved in a fantasy--even an idle fantasy that I have no intention of actually indulging--is going too far toward letting my mind become controlled by the lust of my flesh. Is that really any different from inappropriate contentography?

 

[NotreDame]

Alright, then allow me to clarify terms.

Humans are born sinful. To be born sinful means to have concupiscience--passions directed and dominated by sin.

This is what St. Paul refers to when he speaks of "the flesh".

E.g. Ephesians 2:1-3, Galatians 5:24

The words I chose in my language wasn't pillowy purple prose--but deliberate theological wording based upon two thousand years of biblical, traditional, and orthodox Christian teaching.

-CryptoLutheran

According to traditional Christian teaching, at least in the West

So what? I couldn’t care less what “traditional Christian teaching” is anywhere on the planet. I do, however, recognize it is the text of the Bible that is controlling, determinative, and authoritative.

According to traditional Christian teaching, at least in the West, human beings inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve. This Original Sin is present in us as concupiscence--"desire". Selfish desire. It means that the passions, or desires, of the flesh are deformed, misshapen, "depraved"--literally "bent" "crooked" "broken". From the Latin depravare; from the Latin prefix de meaning "completely" and pravus meaning "crooked" or "bent". Hence the root of man's depravity is sin, sinfulness.

The above is a particular, religious, Christian philosophy. Unsurprisingly, the doctrine of Original Sin is not unanimously accepted within Christianity. Which version do you reference by the way? See, there’s what can be called a weak Original Sin, prevalent among Eastern Orthodoxy, in which the sin of Adam corrupted the human race to follow, whereas Original Sin has an imputation of Adam’s sin onto us, a sin for which we are not culpable as, well, we didn’t disobey God by touching and eating forbidden fruit. A significant number of Protestants reject the idea the idea of Original Sin by imputation. So, which idea of Original Sin do you invoke?

See, religious, and Christian philosophy is more detailed, nuanced, and complicated than regurgitating what you heard some pastor say, or read somewhere. It doesn’t take much for an astute reader of Scripture to quickly realize the Biblical text is very silent as to the specifics of Adam and Eve’s sin in relation to us.

You compound ambiguity with more ambiguity. What does it mean to “inherit Original Sin from Adam and Eve”?

Now, the next step is textual support for whatever view of Original Sin you espouse.

The human person born in a state of sinfulness.

The Scriptures which support this include Romans 3:10-18, Romans 3:23, and Romans 5:12.

Really? “for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; 10 as it is written:”

The verse says we are “under sin.”

Romans 3:23 says,”for all have sinned.”

None of these verses tell us specifically how this sin is present in regards to the idea of Original Sin.

But, substantively, yes, we are sinners. This isn’t disputed.

When I say "our desires are turned inward, rather than outward" I mean that our desire is curved inward upon ourselves, to serve ourselves. The will and desire of fallen man is himself. That is meant by homo incurvatus in se.

“[D]esire is curved inward upon ourselves, to serve ourselves,” is not inherently sinful. A reason is, once again, the ambiguity as to what this entails.

A man “desiring” a better house, car, and then working to provide it for himself isn’t inherently sinful despite it is a desire that “serves” himself. Yet, given the lack of specificity of your phrasing, this is plausibly a sinful act. But there’s not one verse in Scripture supporting what you’ve said, as your statement presently exists, or the breadth of your statement. None.

Humans are born sinful. To be born sinful means to have concupiscience--passions directed and dominated by sin.

This is what St. Paul refers to when he speaks of "the flesh".”

And the verses do not support your verbiage of “inward.” There’s a reason why certain words have certain meanings. There’s also very good reasons why people, some more than others, carefully choose words to convey what they are saying. Words have a limited range of meaning and the meaning of the words is how communication is possible.

There’s not one word in the Greek used that means anything close to “inward.” None.

“3 Among them we too all previously lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest.” No “inward” is involved above. None. Zero. Zilch.

“24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

Again, no Greek word having any meaning of “inward” is used. None.

Those verses do not support your unique, religious belief of “inward.”

To be perfectly frank I am rather taken aback by the hostility with which you chose to respond; and the seeming hostility to what is actually quite rudimentary Christian teaching--at least in the West. Hence my initial responses being somewhat flippant.

Hostility? No, a critical analysis of your personal, religious doctrine of “inward” and observing it doesn’t have any basis in Scripture isn’t “hostility.” It is rather called exposing, rightfully, a view of Scripture which isn’t a correct view of Scripture.

to what is actually quite rudimentary Christian teaching

How quaint. So, I’m to submit to “rudimentary Christian teaching”? No thanks for a few reasons. First, “rudimentary Christian teaching” has historically been used to pervert the meaning of the Bible and deceive many. Yes, as a matter of fact, during the Middle Ages of Europe, the Church exploited the fact the masses couldn’t read Scripture, and the masses accepted whatever the clergy spoon fed them, including false doctrine. Yes, they justified exploitation of the serfs, the Crusades, unquestioned loyalty to the crown, by “rudimentary Christian teaching,” although textually, there was conspicuously a lack of Biblical support for their teaching.

Indeed, Martin Luther repudiated “rudimentary Christian doctrine” as not supported by Scripture.

“[R]udimentary Christian doctrine” has been invoked to justify the murder of other Christians, people of other faiths, and a laundry list of other reprehensible acts.

I start and end with the text of the Bible. All doctrine, teachings, “rudimentary” or otherwise are evaluated, measured, and assessed with the text of the Bible. I couldn’t care less about commonly accepted, rudimentary, widely believed Christian teachings. I care about what the text of the Bible says.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So what? I couldn’t care less what “traditional Christian teaching” is

Alright then, have a nice day.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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

The impression I got when reading it with the strongs numbers is that it's not a sin to look, but to burn with passion with your gaze upon someone is the same as having sex with them.

This saying is true, since most people live only aware of the surface level of creation, it will remain a mystery except to those who have been abused in this way - such as myself.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, but the OP literally places the term "fantasy" on the same side as a mere appreciation of beauty.

I think a "fantasy" goes too far. Sure, I can notice that a particular woman is an wonderful example of God's design...and in my next thought realize that the entire day is also a wonderful example of God's excellent design. And that would be okay.

But to get involved in a fantasy--even an idle fantasy that I have no intention of actually indulging--is going too far toward letting my mind become controlled by the lust of my flesh. Is that really any different from inappropriate contentography?

NO...

 

[iLearn]

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.

You said objectifying other human beings is a sin. My wife is another human being. Is it sin to look at her with lust?

 

[ViaCrucis]

You said objectifying other human beings is a sin. My wife is another human being. Is it sin to look at her with lust?

If you think of your wife as an object, rather than as your wife; the person you have devoted your life to loving, supporting, and partnering with through sickness and health. Then yes, it would be sinful.

Objectifying someone isn't thinking sexually about someone. It's regarding a person as an object rather than as a person. Fantasizing about your wife, whom you love and who loves you, is not lusting, coveting, and objectifying. It's consensual, caring, loving intimacy between two human persons.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RDKirk]

You said objectifying other human beings is a sin. My wife is another human being. Is it sin to look at her with lust?

My sexual lust for my wife is only one facet of my relationship with her. Because my relationship with her is fully rounded and multi-faceted--including "loving, supporting, and partnering through sickness and health"--it is not an objectification to also lust for her.

However, if I fantasize about another woman, that is objectification because I have no such relationship with her. She is actually nothing more to me or for me than the object of my fantasy.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Exodus 20:17
Easy-to-Read Version

17 “You must not want to take your neighbor’s house. You must not want his wife. And you must not want his men and women servants or his cattle or his donkeys. You must not want to take anything that belongs to another person.”

James 1:12-15
Easy-to-Read Version
Temptation Does Not Come From God
12 Great blessings belong to those who are tempted and remain faithful! After they have proved their faith, God will give them the reward[a] of eternal life. God promised this to all people who love him. 13 Whenever you feel tempted to do something bad, you should not say, “God is tempting me.” Evil cannot tempt God, and God himself does not tempt anyone. 14 You are tempted by the evil things you want. Your own desire leads you away and traps you. 15 Your desire grows inside you until it results in sin. Then the sin grows bigger and bigger and finally ends in death.

Genesis 29:17
Easy-to-Read Version
17 Leah’s eyes were gentle,[a] but Rachel was beautiful.

Read full chapter
Footnotes
Genesis 29:17 Leah’s eyes were gentle This might be a polite way of saying Leah was not very pretty.
Genesis 29:17 in all English translations
1 Samuel 16:12
Easy-to-Read Version
12 Jesse sent someone to get his youngest son. This son was a good-looking, healthy[a] young man. He was very handsome.

The Lord said to Samuel, “Get up and anoint him. He is the one.”

Read full chapter
Footnotes
1 Samuel 16:12 healthy The Hebrew word means “red,” “ruddy,” or “red-haired.”
1 Samuel 16:12 in all English translations
1 Samuel 25:3
Easy-to-Read Version
3 This man’s name was Nabal.[a] He was from Caleb’s family. Nabal’s wife was named Abigail. She was a wise and beautiful woman, but Nabal was a mean and cruel man.

Read full chapter
Footnotes
1 Samuel 25:3 Nabal This name means “foolish.”
1 Samuel 25:3 in all English translations
1 Samuel 25:3
Easy-to-Read Version
3 This man’s name was Nabal.[a] He was from Caleb’s family. Nabal’s wife was named Abigail. She was a wise and beautiful woman, but Nabal was a mean and cruel man.

Read full chapter
Footnotes
1 Samuel 25:3 Nabal This name means “foolish.”
1 Samuel 25:3 in all English translations
Ezekiel 23
Easy-to-Read Version
23 The word of the Lord came to me. He said, 2 “Son of man,[a] listen to this story about Samaria and Jerusalem. There were two sisters, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt while they were still young girls. That’s where they first let men touch and handle their young breasts. 4 The older daughter was named Oholah, and her sister was named Oholibah.[c] They became my wives, and we had children. I am using the name Oholah to mean Samaria and the name Oholibah to mean Jerusalem.

5 “Then Oholah became unfaithful to me—she began to live like a prostitute. She began to want her lovers. She saw the Assyrian soldiers 6 in their blue uniforms. They were all handsome young men riding horses. They were leaders and officers, 7 and Oholah gave herself to all those men. All of them were handpicked soldiers in the Assyrian army, and she wanted them all! She became filthy with their filthy idols. 8 Besides that, she never stopped her love affair with Egypt. Egypt made love to her when she was a young girl. Egypt was the first lover to touch her young breasts. Egypt poured his untrue love on her. 9 So I let her lovers have her. She wanted Assyria, so I gave her to them! 10 They raped[d] her. They took her children and killed her. They punished her, and women still talk about her.

11 “Her younger sister Oholibah saw all these things happen. But Oholibah sinned more than her sister did! She was more unfaithful than Oholah. 12 She wanted the Assyrian leaders and officers. She wanted those soldiers in blue uniforms riding their horses. They were all handsome young men. 13 I saw that both women were going to ruin their lives with the same mistakes.

14 “Oholibah continued to be unfaithful to me. In Babylon, she saw pictures of men carved on the walls. These were pictures of Chaldean men wearing their red uniforms. 15 They wore belts around their waists and long turbans on their heads. All those men looked like chariot officers. They all looked like native-born Babylonian men, 16 and Oholibah wanted them. 17 So the Babylonian men came to her bed to have sex with her. They used her and made her so filthy that she became disgusted with them.

18 “Oholibah let everyone see that she was unfaithful. She let so many men enjoy her naked body that I became disgusted with her—just as I had become disgusted with her sister. 19 But Oholibah thought about her time as a prostitute in Egypt when she was young, and she turned to even more prostitution. 20 She remembered the lovers who excited her there, who were like animals in their sexual desires and abilities.

21 “Oholibah, you dreamed of those times when you were young, when your lovers touched and handled your young breasts. 22 So Oholibah, this is what the Lord God says: ‘You became disgusted with your lovers, but I will bring them here, and they will surround you. 23 I will bring all the men from Babylon, especially the Chaldeans. I will bring the men from Pekod, Shoa, and Koa, and all the men from Assyria. I will bring all the leaders and officers, all those desirable young men, chariot officers, and handpicked soldiers riding their horses. 24 That crowd of men will come to you in large groups, riding on their horses and in their chariots. They will have their spears, shields, and helmets. They will gather around you, and I will tell them what you have done to me. Then they will punish you their own way. 25 I will show you how jealous I am. They will become angry and hurt you. They will cut off your nose and ears. They will kill you with a sword. Then they will take your children and burn whatever is left of you. 26 They will take your nice clothes and jewelry. 27 So I will stop your dreams about your love affair with Egypt. You will never again look for them. You will never remember Egypt again!’”

28 This is what the Lord God says: “I am giving you to the men you hate. I am giving you to the men you became disgusted with. 29 And they will show how much they hate you! They will take everything you worked for, and they will leave you bare and naked! People will clearly see your sins. They will see that you acted like a prostitute and dreamed wicked dreams. 30 You did those bad things when you left me to chase after the other nations. You did those bad things when you began to worship their filthy idols. 31 You followed your sister and lived as she did. You, yourself, took her cup of poison and held it in your hands.[e]” 32 This is what the Lord God says:

“You will drink your sister’s cup of poison.
It is a tall, wide cup of poison.
It holds much poison.
People will laugh at you and make fun of you.
33 You will stagger like a drunk.
You will become very dizzy.
That is the cup of destruction and devastation.
It is like the cup of punishment that your sister drank.
34 You will drink the poison in that cup.
You will drink it to the last drop.
You will throw down the glass and break it to pieces.
You will tear at your breasts from the pain.
This will happen because I am the Lord God,
and this is what I said.

35 “So this is what the Lord God said: ‘Jerusalem, you forgot me. You threw me away and left me behind. So now you must suffer for leaving me and living like a prostitute. You must suffer for your wicked dreams.’”

Judgment Against Oholah and Oholibah
36 The Lord said to me, “Son of man, will you judge Oholah and Oholibah? Then tell them about the terrible things they have done. 37 They committed the sin of adultery. They are guilty of murder. They acted like prostitutes—they left me to be with their filthy idols. They had my children, but they forced them to pass through fire. They did this to give food to their filthy idols. 38 They also treated my special days of rest and my holy place as though they were not important. 39 They killed their children for their idols, and then they went into my holy place and made it filthy too! They did this inside my Temple!

40 “They have sent for men from faraway places. You sent a messenger to these men, and they came to see you. You bathed for them, painted your eyes, and put on your jewelry. 41 You sat on a fine bed with a table set before it. You put my incense[f] and my oil[g] on this table.

42 “The noise in Jerusalem sounded like a crowd of people having a party.[h] Many people came to the party. People were already drinking as they came in from the desert. They gave bracelets and beautiful crowns to the women. 43 Then I spoke to one of the women who was worn out from her sexual sins. I asked her, ‘Will they continue to do sexual sins with her, and she with them?’ 44 But they kept going to her as they would go to a prostitute. Yes, they went again and again to Oholah and Oholibah, those wicked women.

45 “But good men will judge them guilty of adultery and murder, because Oholah and Oholibah committed adultery and their hands are covered with blood!”

46 This is what the Lord God said: “Gather the people together to punish and terrorize Oholah and Oholibah. 47 They will throw stones at these women and kill them. They will cut the women to pieces with their swords. They will kill their children and burn their houses. 48 In this way I will remove that shame from this country, and all the other women will be warned not to do the shameful things you have done. 49 They will punish you for the wicked things you did. You will be punished for worshiping your filthy idols. Then you will know that I am the Lord God.”

 

[HatGuy]

Thanks for your post. And thanks to @Billy93 for this important topic. Billy has been working hard to keep up with the onslaught of comments from those with the standard view on the subject. I read through the whole topic and your post stood out as taking a broader view and introducing some important points. The question about wet dreams really caught my eye.

If you don't mind, I would like to explore the topic a bit with you to give @Billy93 a bit of a break and to bring some balance to this discussion. Everyone is invited to join in of course. Although I am likely to ignore those who bring more of the standard view, since that has already been fully exhausted.

I didn't see any discussion about the near context in Matthew chapter five about adultery. There are some things there to explore. As well as the difficulty posed by that passage and how it relates to the reality of human sexuality, especially for men, but for women too. Curious to hear from females about what the passage in question means to them as women.

A discussion of human sexuality, and the role played by what men see (the visual aspect) is central to understanding the difficulty of the primary text. I need to visit some of the links provided to see what is discussed there. But wanted to get the discussion going here first.

I'll start with the difficulty I see in the near context of the verse in question. I will put aside the definition of the word "lust" (covet) for the moment, even though I think it is a good point.

Jesus begins by speaking about looking at a woman with lust for her. ("a woman"/"her" = specific woman, not generalized) But then in verses 29 and 30 speaks about the right eye and the right hand. (causing sin) What this means in reference to a man looking at a woman is fairly obvious. Seems to be a reference to masturbation. Though, I suppose the right hand aspect might mean to lay hands on her. But that would be actual adultery, not lust/coveting.

Matthew 5:27-30 NASB
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 Now if your right eye is causing you to sin, tear it out and throw it away from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand is causing you to sin, cut it off and throw it away from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell.

Thanks. I'll try to keep up. I flit in and out of here occassionally when I have the time, but find I can't engage in discussions online in the same depth as I used to.

But looking at Matt 5:29,30 and the topic of masturbation. I don't think it's obvious at all that these verses are talking about masturbation. I've seen that idea repeated here on this forum from time to time, but there is literally no clear reference to masturbation in those verses. That interpretation is a moment of eisegesis, not exegesis.

It seems to me that Jesus is using the commandment about adultery and coveting as a platform to speak into the larger principles of the heart, moving the discussion away from laws and rules and to the intentions and motivations of the heart (as He always seems to do).

In this case, the principle is that those things that cause one to sin should rather be cut away and not played with.

The word "if" is a big deal here. IF your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off. However, that doesn't mean the right hand is inherently sinful - it means that in some cases, certain things might cause you to sin, and it seems it's not the same for everyone.

Masturbation might cause one to sin, but might not cause everyone to sin. Likewise, having a beer might cause one to sin, but certainly doesn't cause everyone to sin. Is beer evil? No. Is sex evil? No. Is masturbation evil? (I would say, biblically speaking, there is literally nothing saying it is.)

This might translate into fantasy too. Obviously, though, certain acts are wiser than others. Having a beer might not cause me to sin, but having a beer with the wrong crowd might. The crowd isn't sinful, and neither is the beer, but I must know my weakness.

The principle applies across life but for some reason, when it comes to sex, there appears to be a lot more philosophy disguised as theology that a lot of Christians would like to admit. For example, the frequent "objectifying" argument (which has come up on this thread a lot). @Billy93 , I think, is right in noting this is a borrowed philosophy from feminism. There is some truth to it, but it's also a very vague concept that can possibly be used for just about anything.

I once heard someone argue that masturbation is a selfish act, and therefore it's forbidden unless done with your wife. I can understand the logic, but I fail to see the Bible ever really make such clear distinctions around this topic.

And that I think may be part of Jesus' point in Matthew 5. I think it was John Stott who said that the Pharisees would go watch women bath and claim they were pure because they didn't commit adultery. So they turned it all into rules and regulations, and so long as you lived the rules you could do what you want. Not so, says Jesus, as for some people that might be the cause of sin. You can't make rules and regulations on this stuff, you've got to understand the principle and work out the context and take note of individual weakness - and keeping the dignity of others in mind too (in this case, I'm sure the women were not comfortable and the Pharisees might have used laws to justify their actions - law and rules are too weak in truly dealing with sin. Love is better.)

For example, if I fell in love with my wife in Longshanks' England, and there was no priest to bless our union, no way we could do a marriage ceremony, would we be forbidden under God to sleep together and live as husband and wife? Is God such a stickler for ceremony and religious rite that we would be living in sin? I say, no. Likewise, I think Jesus is not building hard and fast rules but providing the heart behind the matter, the overarching principles, and the details may vary from person to person, situation to situation, culture to culture. There's a lot more going on here than just "do this, don't do that."

 

[Jaxxi]

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

Lust not after her beauty in thine heart, neither let her take thee with her eyelids. Proverbs 6:25

And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men, working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense for their error which was meet. Romans 1:27

But every man is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. James 1:14

So what I gather here is listing is just the body craving something. Or the mind. Worldly things, be they skin, food, money, clothes, anything people are desiring strongly. Material goods, fleshly bodies. Anything that is not spiritual.