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

[Billy93]

The OP may have a point, to a certain extent anyway. I always did think that Jimmy Carter's interview in Playboy magazine where he talked about lusting after women other than his wife was a probably bit much.

I am actually not familiar with that interview! Is that real?

 

[Billy93]

There are plenty of sins that don't get a mention in the bible...

But when it comes to sexual sin, there is really nothing new under the sun. The Bible meticulously and explicitly lays out many scenarios of sexual sin in the OT. And in the NT Matthew passage, Jesus intentionally refers directly back to the OT laws which the Jews were already familiar with: in this case, the 10th and 7th commandments.

This is not a new commandment being set forth in this passage about governing one’s thoughts against even fantasizing; rather, He is clarifying how sin starts in the heart, and how in the case of breaking the 7th commandment, you end up breaking the 10th along the way. We know this is what He meant, because He explicitly used the example of “adultery,” rather than just general fornication. Remember, “adultery” to the Jewish audience would have obviously brought to mind the 7th, and Paul confirms that the word Christ used for “lust” referred to the sin of the 10th.

 

[Billy93]

Billy, I'm clicking thru some of your links. A couple of the authors state "the church has been teaching this for centuries but I'm here to tell you today they're wrong." I see a big problem w/ that.

Why? As a Protestant, I already believe “the church” was by and large teaching incorrectly things for centuries. Is it really so difficult to believe that mainstream churches are wrong about something else? I find it telling that no one so far is really tackling my actual argument (that “lust” in the verse in question refers to 10th commandment covetousness), which honestly only makes me more convinced that I’m right about this.

If fantasizing is biblically wrong, then why is the main passage that everyone uses to condemn it referring to something beyond fantasizing?

 

[Billy93]

Not obvious. That is the purpose of the passage. Let me put it another way:

John 16:24
Until now you have asked nothing in my name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.

Psalm 4:7
You have put more joy in my heart than they have when their grain and wine abound.

Proverbs 10:28
The hope of the righteous brings joy, but the expectation of the wicked will perish.

Afraid I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, sorry.

 

[fhansen]

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

Jesus didn't want us to turn people into strictly objects of desire -as if that's their only value. We see the fruits of this abuse everywhere, from sex trafficking to inappropriate contentography addictions, broken homes, etc. As with other sin, lust is a twisting of a God-given good, of a natural, healthy appetite- the desire for sex in this case, into an idol. The natural harmony of creation within us is broken, decreased, as disorder has its way.

 

[Billy93]

Well that is all interesting. I'll have to look into it more, but what you are saying does make sense.

I have often noted that things in the New Testament come across wrong, or people can get bad ideas by taking ideas too far. And yes the quoted passage comes to mind especially with Jesus equating some kind of lust, with actually comitting the act. Some might also say, "hey if I thought about it now I might as well do it, if it is all the same". And well it should be obvious that it really is not all the same. You might want to put up a Rabbinic fence around thought, to encourage people to not sin, and nip things in the bud. But sin that is actually physically committed does more damage etc. So in reality we should be thankful for people who can nip sin in the bud before commiting anything physical, even if it fall short of what the passage speaks of.


But thanks for the post, I think it will provide some more clarity on the issue.

Thanks for keeping an open mind! And if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it (I’ve prayed that God would show me, if I am) - but I just find it interesting, because this is the passage that has always been used to beat over boys’ heads that “lust (fantasizing) is a sin.”

...But if it doesn’t even refer to fantasizing, then we have a problem here. Just seems like it’s a bit of a stretch. And I’ve never heard a sermon on this passage in which the pastor admits “I know the word actually refers back to the 10th commandment which is covetousness, but we interpret it to refer even to basic fantasizing because _____.”

So either they simply aren’t aware of this - or they are being deceptive, and know but don’t care that their audience is incorrectly mentally translating “lust” to “fantasizing.” Easier to stick with the status quo and not be controversial, I guess?

 

[Billy93]

Jesus didn't want us to turn people into strictly objects of desire -as if that's their only value. We see the fruits of this abuse everywhere, from sex trafficking to inappropriate contentography addictions, broken homes, etc. As with other sin, lust is a twisting of a God-given good, of a natural, healthy appetite- the desire for sex in this case, into an idol. The natural harmony of creation within us is broken, decreased, as disorder has its way.

But we “objectify” people every day in different ways. Of course that is not their only value; they are a person. I would argue though that our sexual desires are a God-given, natural, healthy appetite. And that as long as we do not commit sexual sin (the NT explicitly defines what classifies as sexual sin, so there’s no mistake) or plan to commit sexual sin (as in desiring to the point of coveting - which is what Matthew 5 refers to), then there is nothing wrong.

Spending a few minutes every day or every few days thinking about sex is not “an idol.” We spend more time every day listening to music, eating, reading, going for walks, etc. Are these things all idols? Yet for some reason whenever it comes to sexual desire, people act like any amount of time thinking about it is “addiction”-level, an idol, etc. I don’t get it.

 

[chad kincham]

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

Clearly the New Testament teaches that the thought is the same as the act, so if you fantasize about seeing her naked and having sexual intercourse with her, you’ve committed adultery in your heart, as further illustrated by the fact that if you hate someone you are a murderer in your heart, and told that no murderer can enter into heaven - making it obvious the thought is the same as the deed, to God.

You probably should work more to “take every thought captive” and quit looking at women as sex objects to fantasize about having intercourse with.

Probably all of us men have had to deal with the same problem at one time or another, so you’re not the Lone Ranger on this issue.

Blessings.

 

[chad kincham]

But when it comes to sexual sin, there is really nothing new under the sun. The Bible meticulously and explicitly lays out many scenarios of sexual sin in the OT. And in the NT Matthew passage, Jesus intentionally refers directly back to the OT laws which the Jews were already familiar with: in this case, the 10th and 7th commandments.

This is not a new commandment being set forth in this passage about governing one’s thoughts against even fantasizing; rather, He is clarifying how sin starts in the heart, and how in the case of breaking the 7th commandment, you end up breaking the 10th along the way. We know this is what He meant, because He explicitly used the example of “adultery,” rather than just general fornication. Remember, “adultery” to the Jewish audience would have obviously brought to mind the 7th, and Paul confirms that the word Christ used for “lust” referred to the sin of the 10th.

You can’t compare the old covenant, which has to do with the physical, and the new covenant, which is about spiritual things.

In the old covenant the command was not to kill, so as long as they didn’t kill anyone, they were okay - in the new covenant we find out that thoughts of hate in your mind are the same as physical murder, and one becomes a murderer at heart, and cannot enter into heaven.

 

[Billy93]

Clearly the New Testament teaches that the thought is the same as the act, so if you fantasize about seeing her naked and having sexual intercourse with her, you’ve committed adultery in your heart,

See, that’s just not what it says though, sorry. From your response, it appears you missed the point of my post. The NT doesn’t teach that; it teaches that when you covet another man’s wife (10th commandment), you are committing adultery with her (7th commandment) in your heart. It is not just talking about “fantasizing” in general. The 10th commandment tells explicitly what Matthew 5:27-28 is referring to - so why don’t people go back to the 10th to find out what it means? Why do they instead lump on this “fantasizing” doctrine that is nowhere to be found...?

 

[renniks]

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!)

Pretty thin line there. Too easy to cross. There's very little difference between the two. Yes, if it's just a passing temptation, that's not sin, but as soon as it becomes fantasy, that IS coveting.

 

[renniks]

See, that’s just not what it says though, sorry. From your response, it appears you missed the point of my post. The NT doesn’t teach that; it teaches that when you covet another man’s wife (10th commandment), you are committing adultery with her (7th commandment) in your heart. It is not just talking about “fantasizing” in general. The 10th commandment tells explicitly what Matthew 5:27-28 is referring to - so why don’t people go back to the 10th to find out what it means? Why do they instead lump on this “fantasizing” doctrine that is nowhere to be found...?

Lol, if I fantasize about your woman, that's definitely coveting her.

 

[Fervent]

To a degree, I agree with the OP. The element of coveting is missing from typical estimations of lust, but you've oversold coveting. Coveting doesn't necessarily have to involve plotting/planning it is purely a matter of desire. It is envy. Being jealous over what someone else possesses/rightfully belonging to them. And that's what fantasizing involves, taking liberties in thought over something that you do not rightly possess. Lust is not simply appreciating beauty, even recognizing that someone is sexually desireable. It is indulging thoughts of inimacy when no such intimacy can properly be had. So it is often overstated when all sexual thought is condemned, but sexual fantasy is crossing the line.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Thanks for keeping an open mind! And if I’m wrong, I’ll gladly admit it (I’ve prayed that God would show me, if I am) - but I just find it interesting, because this is the passage that has always been used to beat over boys’ heads that “lust (fantasizing) is a sin.”

...But if it doesn’t even refer to fantasizing, then we have a problem here. Just seems like it’s a bit of a stretch. And I’ve never heard a sermon on this passage in which the pastor admits “I know the word actually refers back to the 10th commandment which is covetousness, but we interpret it to refer even to basic fantasizing because _____.”

So either they simply aren’t aware of this - or they are being deceptive, and know but don’t care that their audience is incorrectly mentally translating “lust” to “fantasizing.” Easier to stick with the status quo and not be controversial, I guess?

Well I have seen this thing before on other words. The best example I can think of is the term for tradition in the New Testament. There are folks that are very antitradition where tradition is always evil etc. But that isn't completely true of the New Testament, saint Paul uses the term Paradosis positively two times in reference to his own ministry. But there is a little game people play where paradosis means both tradition, and instruction (You literally are passing something on to someone). So people who have that orientation will use the "instruction" translation of those two passages, to avoid the reality that tradition is not universally bad, it was just bad in terms of people like some of the Pharisees who used it to oppose Jesus.

 

[atpollard]

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.

So ... break out the inappropriate content videos and PTL?

 

[fhansen]

But we “objectify” people every day in different ways. Of course that is not their only value; they are a person. I would argue though that our sexual desires are a God-given, natural, healthy appetite. And that as long as we do not commit sexual sin (the NT explicitly defines what classifies as sexual sin, so there’s no mistake) or plan to commit sexual sin (as in desiring to the point of coveting - which is what Matthew 5 refers to), then there is nothing wrong.

Spending a few minutes every day or every few days thinking about sex is not “an idol.” We spend more time every day listening to music, eating, reading, going for walks, etc. Are these things all idols? Yet for some reason whenever it comes to sexual desire, people act like any amount of time thinking about it is “addiction”-level, an idol, etc. I don’t get it.

Thinking about sex now and then is normal. But all sin originates in the heart before it becomes an action and lust is considered to be covetousness/concupiscence /disordered or inordinate desire. It's the equivalent of gluttony in regard to food, greed in regard to money, wealth, possessions.

 

[Billy93]

So ... break out the inappropriate content videos and PTL?

There are some that would argue that’s okay; I think that’s up for individuals to figure out on their own. I think inappropriate content is unhealthy regardless of whether it’s a sin or not; from what I’ve read it has an effect on one’s brain. Not to mention that it’s almost impossible to visit a inappropriate content site without seeing a bunch of stuff that is blatantly against God’s intentions for sex (homosexuality, orgies, incest, etc.). I may not think fantasizing is wrong, but I do think fantasizing about anything other than man + woman is bad.

 

[Billy93]

Pretty thin line there. Too easy to cross. There's very little difference between the two. Yes, if it's just a passing temptation, that's not sin, but as soon as it becomes fantasy, that IS coveting.

How so??

 

[Billy93]

Lol, if I fantasize about your woman, that's definitely coveting her.

? No, it’s not. Just because you spend a few minutes fantasizing about her doesn’t mean you’re thinking you actually want to be with her in real life, like you’d actually come over if I were gone and she were okay with it. It’s just fantasizing. Coveting is directly tied to taking.

 

[Billy93]

Thinking about sex now and then is normal. But all sin originates in the heart before it becomes an action and lust is considered to be covetousness/concupiscence /disordered or inordinate desire. It's the equivalent of gluttony in regard to food, greed in regard to money, wealth, possessions.

You’re right that sin originates in the heart, which is why covetousness is the heart-sin. But covetousness is more than simply fantasizing for a few minutes… And gluttony is over-indulgence and over-consumption of food; thinking about how good a cheeseburger would taste is not gluttony. Etc.