Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you think that makes women want to fantasize about having intercourse with us? Or is it a lusting after the associated lifestyle? The home/prestige/society that goes with the Maserati? Maybe the man in the three piece tailored suit? Or the stylish hoodie and well-fitting denims?The male counterpart of a woman wearing sensual clothing would be the ostentatious flaunting of material wealth, from wearing gold chains to driving Maserati automobiles. Or, more subtly, wearing expensively tailored clothing and flaunting the most exclusive credit cards and club memberships.
Do you think that makes women want to fantasize about having intercourse with us?
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
That reminds of the joke about asking women whether they would prefer sex, or cake? She asks, "What kind of cake?" - lol"Lust of the flesh" is not merely sex. It includes the indulgence of any sensual pleasure. My wife told me once that sometimes she's not sure if she wants me...or a chocolate bar. And I know for sure she can be as pleased by me giving her a hot oil foot massage as by sex.
You think lust is objectifying woman?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
Do you think that makes women want to fantasize about having intercourse with us? Or is it a lusting after the associated lifestyle? The home/prestige/society that goes with the Maserati? Maybe the man in the three piece tailored suit? Or the stylish hoodie and well-fitting denims?
Let's hear from the ladies on that one. @Kettriken @Jaxxi and any others.
You think lust is objectifying woman?
Do you know I can lust as well as respect and love at the same time?
Or is this impossible task for you?
Do you not know woman also love to be lusted? Or to be desired? It gives them a sense of self worth.
Many marriages ended in divorce because lack of lust.
Lust is important. It is created by God to nurture relationship and yet you descruibe it as objectifying and sinful. Maybe because you are a roman catholic priest so you don't understand.
That was a great response. Thanks.I am not qualified to speak for all women. There are some who may lust after affluent men, some who are distracted by a bare chest, others who find temptation in attention or conversation. As Christians we can enjoy friendship with many people, whether they exhibit these traits or not. Our job is not to stop people from being desirable, it is to stop ourselves from longing for them as spouses if they are not ours to be with.
If you are married this is simplified; don't lust for anyone other than your spouse. For the single brethren the job is more complicated, as the possibilities are greater. You might yearn pointedly at someone who could be a good spouse, particularly if you are dating or courting them, but appreciating them as they are in that moment should still be your focus, taking into account that they may not ultimately be your "one." In this you honor them, yourself, whoever you may end up with, and our God, who has a great plan for you, whether that is to be married or single. Lusting for what is only appropriate for a married couple is a dangerous pitfall, whether you seek to carry it out or not.
Do you think that makes women want to fantasize about having intercourse with us? Or is it a lusting after the associated lifestyle? The home/prestige/society that goes with the Maserati? Maybe the man in the three piece tailored suit? Or the stylish hoodie and well-fitting denims?
Let's hear from the ladies on that one.
That reminds of the joke about asking women whether they would prefer sex, or cake? She asks, "What kind of cake?" - lol
That is so funny.I hope it was Black Forrest.
Sounds like what I said about children. Let's wait until we can afford them. They arrived long before that. (fortunately) Or I never would have had any.... And I cannot afford a female, etc...
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!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.
Are you uncomfortable talking bout 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
Are you uncomfortable talking bout lust?
Because you are a priest?
Well God does not.
He wrote the Song of Solomon in the Bible.
It is about sex and lust.
You can read it like watching porn too. That woman described in the Song of Solomon isn't my wife.
Clearly God intention is for us to enjoy reading it and become lustfull am I not wrong?
Alright then, have a nice day.
-CryptoLutheran
Oh, never paused for a moment to question the Christian theology you’ve been spoon fed? You are so trusting.
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!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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?