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

Billy93 · Mar 13, 2021

aiki said:
And by what process of thought would a guy arrive at the idea of seducing another man's wife? Would he just start up, suddenly, out-of-the-blue, and say to himself, "I'm gonna seduce that guy's wife!" Of course not. He'd work up to such a thing, a process involving the sort of sexual fantasizing you're allowing for in your post. This fantasizing - "evil imagining" the Bible calls it - may not be the single factor leading to sin, but it very definitely contributes to it and therefore ought to be carefully avoided! It seems like a lot of hair-splitting that you're doing, condemning adultery but accommodating the thinking that brings one to adultery. Really, I thought of Occam's Razor when I read your OP.

He would indeed work up to such a thing, which is why if he was smart he would fantasize about someone imaginary or a movie star or someone else who he otherwise has no chance of ever getting to that point. Where exactly does the Bible call sexual fantasy “evil imagining”? I absolutely agree that it is wise to avoid temptation that could lead to sin, which is why again, it would be much better to fantasize about someone imaginary/random rather than, say, your next-door neighbor’s wife…

aiki said:
Do you honestly think God is approving of you using a "hot woman" as fodder for your sexual fantasies? How is that not the very thing one does with inappropriate content? Are you allowing for a Christian man to indulge in looking at inappropriate content? Goodness! You say you're a "conservative" Christian man, but your rationalization of immoral imaginings suggest otherwise!

Yes, I do think that. Why wouldn’t I? The Bible says that women were made for men, God gave numerous of his most godly men multiple wives and concubines (even said He’d have given more!), etc. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that condemns the natural male sexual desire/imagination. Where does the Bible say that someone is not allowed to imagine sexual relations? If this were so wrong, surely the Bible would have addressed it; instead, people’s go-to verse on the subject turns out to actually be talking about something else. Maybe people should re-evaluate?

If a Christian man wants to indulge in inappropriate content, then that’s between him and God - but it’s worth noting that there is amateur inappropriate content out there that doesn’t involve human trafficking/people being taken advantage of. Though I avoid inappropriate content altogether bc it’s a huge waste of time and has the potential to mess with one’s mind and desires.

So because I say I am an otherwise conservative Christian, that means I must line up and agree with every single thing like a mindless zombie? I was raised to think the same way as everyone else here does; the only reason I’m thinking the way I am now is because of the research I’ve done - and btw, most of the others who wrote these articles, are conservative Christians as well. Maybe then there’s some truth to it?

Do you agree or disagree that Matthew 5:27-28 refers to 10th commandment covetousness? Can we at least address that fundamental point?

Billy93 · Mar 13, 2021

The Liturgist said:
When people do that in an effort to second-guess the doctrines of “mainstream Christianity,” they generally have already made up their mind and are going to read scripture eisegetically, with confirmation bias.

I mean, I was raised to believe in what I now consider to be other false doctrines - which is what led to me questioning all sorts of stuff. I used to believe the exact same as most others here, that the verses refer to fantasizing. Until I came across these articles and found that they made legitimate points. And no one is providing a valid argument against the fact that Scripture blatantly equates Matthew 5 lust with 10th commandment covetousness - which sort of makes me more confident that these articles/I am right…

The Liturgist said:
This is why the study of and obedience to the doctrines of mainstream Christianity is so important. The universal faith, as the fourth century theologian Vincent of Lerins said, is that which has always been believed everywhere and by every one. We want to find that universal Christianity, which is objectively inspired by God, and which can be evaluated objectively. The doctrines are clear, well known and generally agreed upon. And they do not condone dubious sexual morality.

The early church would impose penances including denial of communion on adulterers and sodomites for decades, or until the penitent was nearing death. The modern church is much less severe, but the definition of sin hasn’t changed, because, as the Bible says, God does not change.

I definitely agree, but as a Protestant I am already inclined to readily accept the notion that “mainstream” can be wrong. And you are right: God does not change, but people throughout history have routinely misunderstand God, twisted His words, etc. It was happening even in the early church. Which is why I find it interesting that whenever pastors preach on this Matthew 5 passage, they never even touch the argument that the word is the same as which refers to 10th commandment covetousness…

If people are so secure in their belief that the passage refers to any and all fantasy, you would think that a counterargument to my point would be a regular part of all these sermons. Basically, I’ve never heard a sermon on this subject where the pastor brings up “Some would note that the word to describe ‘lust’ here is the same word Paul uses in Romans to refer to the 10th commandment, but this is wrong to interpret that they are the same because _______.”

But I hear no such thing. All I hear is Matthew 5 read just as written, and the audience’s modern ears all hear “lust” and automatically think “fantasizing.” Nobody even addresses the argument that it might refer to more than your run-of-the-mill fantasizing - because they are set on promoting the traditional idea that it condemns any and all fantasy. If so, then shouldn’t there be an easy counterargument to me? I have raised this point of the equivalence between Matthew 5/Romans 7/10th commandment in numerous comments throughout this thread, and people by and large aren’t addressing it or showing how I’m incorrect. Instead, it’s mostly a bunch of comments about “Lust (fantasizing) is wrong…”

dqhall · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
…Did you not read my initial post or the links within? It seems like you don’t understand the argument, and frankly, interactions like this are exactly the sort of thing that makes me more and more convinced I’m right.

Here, to paraphrase:

Me: “Matthew 5 has been misinterpreted: Where it says ‘lust’ it actually meant something different back then; it doesn’t simply mean fantasizing.”

You: “Fantasizing is wrong.”

Me: “Where does the Bible say fantasizing is wrong?”

You: [Posts Matthew 5 passage]

…See what I mean? It’s totally circular logic. The whole premise of my argument is that Matthew 5 is not talking about fantasizing… so why are you using the exact same Matthew 5 passage as your counterargument?

Lust is wanting sex, is it not? How could a man look at a woman and be guilty of adultery, if he did not want sex? What do you think lust meant 2000 yrs ago? Fantasy of having sex with a married woman could get a man in serious trouble with a jealous husband. A man with many sexual fantasies is heading for trouble. Lusting for an unmarried woman who does not want the man infatuated with her might result in a sexual harassment or stalking complaint. Now you have not convinced me you have proof of being able to distinguish between what is fantasy lust and what is real lust. Lust sets a man’s mind on a path that might do damage. One who fantasized about inappropriate content for many hours found himself in bed with a prostitute. She is not easily satisfied. It is a path that leads to death. You might read Proverbs. Do not go to the house of the adulteress. Perhaps you fantasized kissing a woman, but did not ever embrace her. If it was not adultery, it might have been a waste of time.

NotreDame · Mar 13, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
When we come to regard another human being as an object to be taken as a possession, we have erred--transgressed God's Law, and have sinned against our neighbor. For this reason it was written in the Decalogue, "Do not covet your neighbor's wife", and Christ our Lord and God teaches not so much as to direct our selfish passions and desires at another person. We are not to take possession of another; but to give ourselves away in peace, love, mercy, and humble service to another.

In the same way that Christ has given Himself away to the world, we as His disciples are called to a life of carrying our cross, and throwing ourselves away in love toward our fellow human beings. When we objectify a human person, we have indeed sinned both against God and our fellow man.

There's nothing wrong with sexuality. There's nothing wrong with sexual desire. But when the passions of the flesh, enflamed by human sin, are malformed, misshapen, and misdirected it is sin. On account of human concupiscence, the sad and tragic truth that we are fallen sinners whose hearts and minds and desires have been directed inward. As human beings bent inward upon ourselves (homo incurvatus in se), by sin, we do not love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and we do not love our neighbor as ourselves. That is the reality of sinful man under the Law.

Therefore, we need to take our sin seriously. We need to take our sin seriously and confess it boldly before God, and recognize ourselves as the naked and shameful sinners that we are. Not in a pessimistic, self-loathing way, but rather to simply be honest about the content of our innermost heart and thoughts.

God already knows we are sinners, and He already loves us. He already sent Christ, in order to suffer and die and rise again for us. But insisting that our dung doesn't stink only makes us worse. Like a prodigal son eating pig slop and still being too proud to return home to a loving father.

-CryptoLutheran

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.

Well, this isn’t any rebuttal to the point in the opening post. You certainly do not demonstrate the specific interpretation of the specific verse is erroneous.

Regardless, the Law certainly did recognize “A human being” as an object to “possess.” The OT has several passages acknowledging the legality of slavery, including chattel slavery.

Equally problematic is your choice of wording. What does “objectify” mean? What specific verses can you cite to for your view?

NotreDame · Mar 13, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
The obvious misogyny aside...

The traditional numbering of the 10 commandments used by Christians in the West distinguishes between coveting possessions and coveting your neighbor's spouse. So that line of reasoning ain't gonna fly.

The Apostle St. Paul has written, "Whatever is not of faith is sin." What the Law was unable to do, on account of sin, God has done by sending His own Son in the flesh, that through faith in Him we would be made righteous--justified. The righteousness of faith is what counts. Apart from faith all our works are wretched, even our most noblest and highest efforts. Because every work we do is stained with our own bloody, violent, and sinful hands.

The more seriously we take God's Greatest Commandment, that we love the Lord our God and love our neighbors as our selves, the more we shall see the grand disparity between what we ought to do, and our abysmal failure to do it. It is in this nakedness of our sinful humanity before God that we are driven to our knees in contrition and repentance. And thus in our call as followers of Jesus, to carry our cross of discipleship, we must continually mortify our flesh through repentance, that we might drown the old Adam.

To quote Dr. Luther, "Sin boldly, but let your faith in Christ be all the more bold." That is, let's not pretend our dung doesn't stink, when it does. Let us be honest with ourselves, we are sinners. We sin constantly. And therefore let us boldly confess our sins, in full trust of God's promise which we have in the words of St. John, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

Are you familiar with St. Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians concerning the thorn in his flesh, which he constantly prayed to God about? What was the Lord's response to him? "My grace is enough for you, My strength is made manifest in weakness."

We all have our struggles in this life. And we may endure in those struggles until the very day we breathe our last gasp for air. That's part of what it means to carry our cross. This life, this Christian life, is a cross. It is a cross we must carry. What that cross looks like is not going to be the same for everyone. But each of us must carry it.

If you are setting aside your own responsibility to take up your cross because you are waiting for God to magically put a thought in your head, you are going to be waiting forever. There is no promise from God that He is going to do that. We have Christ's solemn promise that He will give us rest, for His yolk is easy; but it is still a cross--a painful cross. We still have to carry it; but it will not crush us or defeat us for we have Christ who brings us the comfort and mercy of His Gospel. That is the Christian life. That has always been the Christian life.

-CryptoLutheran

Man, your post is inundate with your personal, religious philosophy, without much to any Biblical support cited.

For instance:

Nope. It means that when our desires are turned inward, rather than outward, we are seeking to gratify ourselves and failing to live for the sake of our neighbor.

That is your personal, religious philosophy. I can’t find any verse that comes remotely close to what you’ve said. Not one. Not one in Greek, not one in Hebrew, or Latin. Can you provide any?

Yes, if your desire for food causes you to hoard food while your neighbor right beside you is starving, you are sinning.

Oh? The verse that says this is????

atpollard · Mar 13, 2021

A friend of mine once described sin as a drain inlet in a curb with the water pouring down it. He said most people want to see how close to the inlet they can get without being sucked down. God warns us to stay as far as possible away from the inlet.

Reading this topic has convinced me he had a really good analogy.

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2021

NotreDame said:
Man, your post is inundate with your personal, religious philosophy, without much to any Biblical support cited.

For instance:

That is your personal, religious philosophy. I can’t find any verse that comes remotely close to what you’ve said. Not one. Not one in Greek, not one in Hebrew, or Latin. Can you provide any?

You can't find a single verse in Scripture that says that human beings are sinful, selfish and held captive to the flesh?

Oh? The verse that says this is????

Luke 6:25
Matthew 25:42
Isaiah 58:7
Luke 3:11
Proverbs 19:17
James 2:15-16
1 John 3:17-18
Proverbs 14:31
Proverbs 22:9
Galatians 6:2
Romans 12:20
Deuteronomy 15:11

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Mar 13, 2021

NotreDame said:
Well, this isn’t any rebuttal to the point in the opening post. You certainly do not demonstrate the specific interpretation of the specific verse is erroneous.

Regardless, the Law certainly did recognize “A human being” as an object to “possess.” The OT has several passages acknowledging the legality of slavery, including chattel slavery.

Equally problematic is your choice of wording. What does “objectify” mean? What specific verses can you cite to for your view?

What part of "love your neighbor" is difficult to understand exactly?

-CryptoLutheran

Bible Highlighter · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
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.

Matthew 5:28-30 is referring to fantasizing about a woman and it is a mind sin that can condemn a person unless they repent of such a sin (i.e. They confess and forsake such a sin).

And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, Thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.” (Mark 7:20-23). Evil thoughts come out of the heart of man and they can defile a man. What could be evil thoughts? If a person thinks about sexual fantasies about another that is not their wife, they are having evil thoughts.
“Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.” (Matthew 5:28-30). First, Jesus says whoever looks at a woman. Looks. Looks at her with lust. So the “looking” is the issue. To look so as to lust. Jesus did not say it was okay to fantasize about a woman as long as you do not make plans to physically be with her. His point was just the act of thinking about her in any way sexually is the same equivalent as the very act of adultery. Second, Jesus talks about how if your right hand offends you, cut it off. This is suggestive of a man using his hand to please himself while he visualizes wanting to be with this woman as a part of a fantasy or in actually desiring to later make advances upon her for real in some way. Either way, it is the mind sin that is condemned. Jesus is not exclusively concerned with a person making just plans to do the actual act. His point was simply one of having lustful sexual thoughts that can condemn a person despite just the physical act condemning them.
Jesus says narrow is the way (Matthew 7:14). Your view on Matthew 5:28-30 does not sound like the narrow way but it sounds like the broad way and or the wide gate path. For why would a person want to take the chance that they may be condemned by God if they are wrong by using this kind of interpretation? Does not sexual fantasies lead to being a slave to this kind of sin? Take for example: inappropriate content. Surely inappropriate content is not something that is of God or approved of by God. People in the inappropriate content industry are destroyed and they hurt horribly. If one participates in that industry by even watching it out of enjoying it, one is in support of the inappropriate content industry (Which is a destruction of people's lives). Does not one feel guilt by God for watching inappropriate content or lusting after women sexually? If not, then they need to double check their conscience before God.
2 Peter 2:1 and 2 Peter 2:14 talks about how there are false teachers who have eyes full of adultery and who cannot cease from sin. It says they have eyes full of adultery and it does not mean they are making plans to commit adultery and thus leading to commit the actual act of adultery. They have eyes full of adultery (sexual fantasies) and they cannot cease from sin. These are false teachers. Why would we want to be even remotely close to anything like this? For your interpretation Matthew 5:28-30 makes it sound like you can have eyes full of adultery.
What is the first greatest command? "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment." (Mark 12:29-30). So if a person is truly seeking to love God with all their mind, they would not want to commit sin in their mind by having forced sexual thoughts upon another and thus commit sin against their neighbor. For if the physical act of committing adultery is wrong, then surely the thinking about that kind of sin is equally condemning in God's eyes. For it is the pleasing of the flesh outside of marriage.
1 John 3:15. In this verse: John says whoever hates his brother is like a murderer, and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. This is yet another mind sin. If we simply have evil or murderous or harmful thoughts towards our brother, it is the same equivalent as murder according to the apostle John. This is yet another example of a mind sin that can condemn us just as fantasizing about a woman can condemn us in Matthew 5:28-30.
Genesis 6. What was one of the reasons God condemned the whole world with a global flood? It was because their thoughts were evil continually. For it is written: “and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” Having thoughts of adultery or fornication would be evil thoughts and not good thoughts. 2 Peter 2:5-6 talks about how the global flood is an example to all who should live ungodly thereafter.
Philippians 4:8 says, “Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.” Our minds should be focused on things that are pure, and lovely, and not on evil things like inappropriate content, or sexually fantasizing about a woman. For such things can lead to our condemnation by God. A person can have murderous thoughts and be condemned. A person can have thoughts of theft and be condemned. One's thoughts can potentially lead to the action of doing so. But the main problem is that one's mind is being focused on that which is sinful instead of that which is godly and good.
Many have tried to undo the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28-30. For let's be honest. Not many guys like Matthew 5:28-30 because they find it too difficult to obey in not having sexual thoughts and or they think it is normal to have them. It is a weakness of men. So naturally man will try to undo this passage. Others have said that the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:28-30 is all a metaphor because Jesus is not expecting us to literally hurt ourselves by ripping out our eyes, and or cutting off our hands. Others have said that Matthew 5:28-30 is exclusively a part of the Old Covenant period and such a teaching ended officially when the New Covenant began with Christ’s death upon the cross. While it is true that the New Covenant did begin with Christ’s death upon the cross, this does not mean that Jesus was teaching primarily Old Covenant at the sermon on the Mount. Jesus was primarily giving us New Covenant teachings so as to prepare us for the New Covenant that would begin with His death. But the point here is that men really hate Matthew 5:28-30 because their old life was filled with sexual fantasies all the time. It has become so ingrained within him that he thinks it is normal and okay (When it is not). God's ways are not our ways. There is a way that seems right unto a man, but the end thereof is death (Proverbs 14:12).
Romans 13:14 says, “But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.” The way we can overcome the desires of the flesh like lusting or fantasizing about women is by putting on the Lord Jesus Christ like a cloak or piece of clothing. We must walk in the same way Christ did.
We are to pick up our cross, and deny ourselves and follow Jesus. For what will it profit us if we gain the whole world and yet lose our own soul? How is lusting after women a part of denying ourselves? It simply isn't. It's not a part of God's plan for our lives.
John says, “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.” (1 John 2:16-17). This includes having sexual thoughts towards women. This is one of the big top sins that is of this world. It's the lust of the eyes. But it is of the world. This lust is of the world, and it is not of God.

Sketcher · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
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

I researched lust in the New Testament a long time ago. Yes, the sin of lust is sexual coveting. And I would like to believe what you're saying about sexual thoughts, but there are some problems with this.

1) You seem to be saying that the harm with covetous desires is when they turn into thoughts of planning, but this falls short of what covetousness/envy is. A neighbor might have a good looking wife, and I could look at her, fantasize, and have no plans to actually seduce her or tip her off that I would like her to do the same to me. Even if I successfully keep that boundary, I can still very easily get jealous, and the likelihood for that grows the more I fantasize about her. That jealousy for another man's wife means I'm coveting and the basis for this is sexual. Hebrews 12:1-2 tells us:

Therefore, since we have so great a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, let us also lay aside every encumbrance and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

So it's not just sins which entangle us that we are to lay aside, but also every encumbrance which slows us down and makes it easier for the sins to entangle us. The fantasizing about the neighbor's wife, if it were not not qualify as sin in and of itself, would nevertheless qualify as encumbrance because it fuels the coveting.

2) There's a difference between finding a single lady attractive, thinking about how a date with her would be fun, and having an X-rated fantasy about her. If she's not my wife, she's not mine to use sexually. Lust is sexual coveting, and that is universally spoken of as wrong in the New Testament, yet Paul wrote about piously having that same level of desire to be with Christ in an honoring way in Philippians 1:23. That's the same Greek word that you'll find when describing the sin of coveting in Romans 7:7-8, and James 1:14-15. And there's another Greek word that describes coveting in James 4:2 but which also describes pious desires for spiritual gifts in 1 Corinthians 12:31, 14:1 and 14:39.
Now, there may well be some nuance there that someone better trained in the Greek than I could point out, but my takeaway is that it's not really how intensely you desire something that makes it right or wrong, but whether you are desiring something that is forbidden or not. Should I passionately desire to be with Christ, or a greater manifestation of the Spirit in my life? Absolutely! Should I passionately desire a prostitute or my neighbor's wife? Absolutely not!
Epithumia Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard
Zeloo Meaning in Bible - New Testament Greek Lexicon - New American Standard

3) I may have hinted at this before, but passion motivates planning. Let's say that obtaining a greater manifestation of the Spirit could be planned. My piety in desiring that manifestation wouldn't begin with the planning, it would be with the desire that motivates the planning, and it would grow again with the action to obtain it. Now, obtaining spiritual gifts isn't like that of course, God is the one pulling the switches, but the piety is still there even though one couldn't plan to get it. So the good desire that would speak well of me is still there. Inversely, even if I fall short of planning to get illicit sex, my desire for it is not to my credit and is something I need to repent of. It would be worse if I were making plans and taking action to make it happen, but the making of plans to get illicit sex doesn't grow from a good desire. The passion fuels every outwardly bad thing that I would ever do to get it.

Bible Highlighter · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
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

Paul says we have the mind of Christ in 1 Corinthians 2:16. Obviously Christ kept himself pure and He did not sin. So if we have the mind of Christ, we will not justify the idea that we can have evil adulterous thoughts towards others. It is neither loving towards God or our neighbor to have such thoughts. Both Jesus, the apostle Peter, and the apostle John laid the framework for how mind sins can condemn us (Matthew 5:28-30, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 2:14, 1 John 3:15).

The Christian life is one of self denial and not in enjoying things that are sinful. We are to offer our bodies as a willing sacrifice unto God (Romans 12:1).

“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2).

Bible Highlighter · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
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

Having sexual thoughts that are outside of the one you are married to is wrong and God will condemn men for this sin if they don’t repent of such a sin.

“And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.” (2 Timothy 2:19).

If one overcomes the sin of sexual fantasies, they will see how it was evil and wrong before God. Most do not want to give up this sin because they find it highly pleasurable. Men of this world like to fantasize about women. It’s normal for the guys of this world to do this. But that which is esteemed among men is an abomination in the sight of God (Luke 16:15).

Kettriken · Mar 13, 2021

I was taught that self gratification is not a sin, but thinking of another while doing so most certainly is. This is using the other person's body without their consent, even if it is "only" in your mind. It does not take a parsing of the old Greek or Hebrew to see the pitfall inherent.

Never the less, the OP has been given such parsing in several posts but still brushes past them and claims that no one has addressed his initial points of exegesis. This is disingenuous for someone who wishes to seriously seek God's will through scripture. Would you, Billy, address the contradicting points?

It would also be of value for anyone reading this thread to note that the OP has spoken several times of women as being "made for man." This does not speak well, in this context (or any other for that matter,) for his ability to view us, purely, as sisters in Christ, no matter what your opinion may be about one's ability to "lust" without "coveting."

Billy93 · Mar 13, 2021

atpollard said:
A friend of mine once described sin as a drain inlet in a curb with the water pouring down it. He said most people want to see how close to the inlet they can get without being sucked down. God warns us to stay as far as possible away from the inlet.

Reading this topic has convinced me he had a really good analogy.

So how exactly is me imagining women who either don’t even exist, or who I don’t know/live nowhere near and thus could never be tempted to commit acts with - how is that getting anywhere close to the sin of covetousness?

Billy93 · Mar 13, 2021

ViaCrucis said:
Luther's Large Catechism, on the 9th and 10th Commandments

"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his cattle, nor anything that is his.

These two commandments are given quite exclusively to the Jews; nevertheless, in part they also concern us. For they do not interpret them as referring to unchastity or theft, because these are sufficiently forbidden above. They also thought that they had kept all those when they had done or not done the external act. Therefore God has added these two commandments in order that it be esteemed as sin and forbidden to desire or in any way to aim at getting our neighbor’s wife or possessions

...

And yet we pretend to be godly, know how to adorn ourselves most finely and conceal our rascality, resort to and invent adroit devices and deceitful artifices (such as now are daily most ingeniously contrived) as though they were derived from the law codes; yea, we even dare impertinently to refer to it, and boast of it, and will not have it called rascality, but shrewdness and caution.

In this lawyers and jurists assist, who twist and stretch the law to suit it to their cause, stress words and use them for a subterfuge, irrespective of equity or their neighbor’s necessity. And, in short, whoever is the most expert and cunning in these affairs finds most help in law, as they themselves say: Vigilantibus iura subveniunt [that is, The laws favor the watchful].

This last commandment therefore is given not for rogues in the eyes of the world, but just for the most pious, who wish to be praised and be called honest and upright people, since they have not offended against the former commandments, as especially the Jews claimed to be, and even now many great noblemen, gentlemen, and princes. For the other common masses belong yet farther down, under the Seventh Commandment, as those who are not much concerned whether they acquire their possessions with honor and right."

-CryptoLutheran

There is a difference between imagining and desiring to actually have in real life.

aiki · Mar 13, 2021

Billy93 said:
He would indeed work up to such a thing, which is why if he was smart he would fantasize about someone imaginary or a movie star or someone else who he otherwise has no chance of ever getting to that point.

And, again:

Philippians 4:8
8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

There are very few things that meet all of the requirements of this verse. inappropriate contentography isn't one of them, obviously. Nor are sexual fantasies about "hot women" you've seen. What is honorable about using a woman to gratify selfish, sexual impulses? How does it honor her to abuse her in your imagination by using her as a tool, essentially, to stimulate yourself sexually? How does it honor God to do so? What is lovely about reducing a woman to a sexual object in your mind? Where is the loveliness of the holy Saviour - whose disciple and ambassador you are called to be - in your carnal imaginings about women? What is pure or right about employing your imagination to such selfish, impure imaginings? What is pure about making a woman a thing to use as a sex object? And so on.

And also:

1 Corinthians 10:31
31 Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

"All" is a very encompassing word. It certainly would include your imagination. How does sexual fantasizing about woman glorify God, exactly? This is the God, mind you, who in His word has repeatedly told us to be spiritually-minded, not carnally-minded (which is to have a mind oriented upon satisfying fleshly impulses). In fact, God warns us again and again in Scripture that the flesh is fundamentally contrary to things spiritual.

Galatians 5:17
17 For the flesh sets its desire against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; for these are in opposition to one another, so that you may not do the things that you please.

Galatians 6:7-8
7 Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.

Romans 8:5-8
5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit.
6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace,
7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so,
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

So, how, exactly, do you avoid being fleshly-minded, setting your mind on the things of the Spirit, while you selfishly imagine sexual interactions with women? How do you propose to escape the corruption of sowing to the flesh in your fantasies about fornication?

And:

Galatians 5:19-21
19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality,
20 idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions,
21 envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

How do your selfish, carnal sexual imaginings about woman avoid being immoral, impure, and sensual - the first three things in this list of "deeds of the flesh" - that Paul warns characterize those who will NOT inherit the kingdom of God?

1 Corinthians 9:24-27
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but only one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may win.
25 Everyone who competes in the games exercises self-control in all things. They then do it to receive a perishable wreath, but we an imperishable.
26 Therefore I run in such a way, as not without aim; I box in such a way, as not beating the air;
27 but I discipline my body and make it my slave, so that, after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified.

Why would Paul need to take such harsh measures in discipline of his body? Why did he exercise self-control as though he were an elite athlete preparing for competition? Why did he work to make his body his slave? Because he knew that if he gave his flesh an inch it would take a mile; because he knew that in his flesh dwelled no good thing (Romans 7:18); because he knew corruption was the harvest of sowing to his flesh; because he was so crazy about God, so strongly desiring deep, rich, spiritual fellowship with God that he would do nothing to purposefully jeopardize or compete with what he had with his holy Maker. Christ was his life (Philippians 1:21; Colossians 3:4) and the Great Prize of the "race" he ran as a disciple of Jesus (Philippians 3:14; Philippians 3:8).

How does your sexual fantasizing follow Paul's example, forsaking the impulses of his flesh, strictly controlling the desires of his flesh, in order to achieve the spiritual prize of fellowship with God?

Billy93 said:
Yes, I do think that. Why wouldn’t I? The Bible says that women were made for men, God gave numerous of his most godly men multiple wives and concubines (even said He’d have given more!), etc.

Chapter and verse, please. Did God give Adam multiple wives? Why not, do you think, if He was so gung-ho about polygamy, as you suggest?

Billy93 said:
There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that condemns the natural male sexual desire/imagination.

Sexual desire is perfectly natural, yes, and nothing to stress over, but allowing that natural desire ground in your imagination to create selfish, sexual fantasies is utterly contrary to the spiritually-minded life of a follower of Christ whose preoccupation is to be with the Saviour and the holy, self-sacrificing life to which he has called all of his disciples (Matthew 16:24-25)

Billy93 said:
Where does the Bible say that someone is not allowed to imagine sexual relations? If this were so wrong, surely the Bible would have addressed it; instead, people’s go-to verse on the subject turns out to actually be talking about something else. Maybe people should re-evaluate?

Where does the Bible ever say that selling illicit drugs to children is wrong? Where does the Bible explicitly forbid setting your neighbor's car on fire? Is it okay to poke the eyes out of stray cats because the Bible never says you shouldn't? If the Bible doesn't say exactly that one ought not to do a particular thing, then, according to your logic, it is perfectly all right to do! Surely, you see that's ridiculous!

Billy93 said:
If a Christian man wants to indulge in inappropriate content, then that’s between him and God - but it’s worth noting that there is amateur inappropriate content out there that doesn’t involve human trafficking/people being taken advantage of.

This is abhorrent coming from someone claiming to be a follower of Christ.

Billy93 said:
Though I avoid inappropriate content altogether bc it’s a huge waste of time and has the potential to mess with one’s mind and desires.

Uh huh.

Billy93 said:
So because I say I am an otherwise conservative Christian, that means I must line up and agree with every single thing like a mindless zombie?

??? This is called Strawman arguing. Look it up. No one has said you "must line up and agree with every single thing like a mindless zombie." But in this matter you are utterly wrong.

Billy93 said:
I was raised to think the same way as everyone else here does; the only reason I’m thinking the way I am now is because of the research I’ve done

You've found folks who are of a mind with yourself. This isn't honest research; it's just bias confirmation.

Billy93 said:
Do you agree or disagree that Matthew 5:27-28 refers to 10th commandment covetousness? Can we at least address that fundamental point?

Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB)
27 "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.

To covet a thing is not merely to desire to possess it. At bottom, coveting a thing is an expression of selfishness, the very opposite of the attitude of self-sacrifice to which Christ has called his followers.

Matthew 16:24-25 (NASB)
24 Then Jesus said to His disciples, "If anyone wishes to come after Me, he must deny himself, and take up his cross and follow Me.
25 "For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it; but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.

No matter how you try to spin it, the selfishness at the heart of sexual fantasizing is clearly against the crucified, spiritually-minded life of a disciple of Christ.

Billy93 · Mar 13, 2021

Toro said:
Its late so I will answer this the best I can.

The problem is when WE decide what is good and bad when God has defined what is good and what is bad.

The Bible does not define imagining sex as bad.

Toro said:
We are to do His will above our own.

Agreed; of course we are.

Toro said:
While it is NATURAL to desire and have lusts.... WHAT we do by nature is to do what is wrong. Because in the OT there was external rewards. One could NOT have the Holy Spirit INSIDE them, they could only have the Holy Spirit REST upon them. In the OT, humans had no choice in to sin or not to sin so there was a greater lenience as to what they could "get away with". They were in general obedient through physical means and were thus rewarded (or punished) by physical means.

I give X amount of my crop, livestock.... whatever to God. In my obedience, I receive physical abundance/wealth/health/etc.

But the Bible doesn’t say that sexual imagination is wrong… “What we do by nature is to do what is wrong”; sex was invented before the Fall. Man’s sex drive and imagination was invented before the Fall.

Toro said:
When we moved into the NT Jesus gave us victory OVER sin.... but it is not a victory that we simply stumble into, it is a battle that as long as we fight, no matter if we get knocked down once... or one billion times...we will receive that victory, it is that we seek victory over the sin that God has called sin.... it is not what WE see it as but what HE sees it as. We are to judge ourselves honestly.....by the example He has provided for us..... not to use our logic to justify ourselves. Yes, fantasies are not in themselves wicked or evil, but the subject matter of that fantasy CAN be.... depending on the place it holds in our heart. Our hearts are wicked, mine, yours... all of our hearts seek to deceive us, for it is in their (our) nature to do so.

Right, but we need to make sure that what we are calling “sin,” is actually sin. Otherwise we are fighting not against our fallen nature, but our God-given desires. the Bible even warns of those who will call things wrong, which actually aren’t.

And I’m not using my own logic; I’m using the Bible’s logic. The Bible says that the 10th commandment is the same thing as the “lust” Jesus speaks of in Matthew 5.

This is the covetousness of the 10th commandment.

Someone simply imagining sexual acts with someone (could even be someone imaginary!) for a mere few minutes, does not come even close to fulfilling the criteria of the 10th commandment.

Toro said:
I do not claim you guilty or innocent, I simply see error.... again, you do not need to agree with me, but it is important that we all make sure that where we stand is not out of our conscience being seared and our heart being hardened in that particular area. For all of us have areas we are blind and others see clearly.

I can understand what you’re getting at, but I am basing my view directly off of my understanding of Scripture. And I have prayed repeatedly about this. I hope He reveals the truth to me beyond a shadow of a doubt if I am wrong.

Toro said:
It could be that God has not spoken to you on this issue after your prayer, to test, do you follow after your heart, seeking the ways of the world, or do you use this to seek truth and ask Him to reveal the condition of your heart to you. You say you pray that IF you are in error that you will come to see it and in that I am thankful and pray you have revealed to you that which needs to be revealed. NOT that you will see ME as right, but see error in fantasizing that even IF it is accceptable, it has a far greater likelihood to cause trouble and pain than anything of true benefit.

Sorry, but this doesn’t make much sense. I said that I’ve prayed to Him asking Him to show me the truth. Before I came to find these articles, I actually thought it was wrong just like everybody else here. The articles were convincing to me, and most of the points they raise, haven’t really even been addressed here.

Also, I don’t think me imagining sex for a few minutes is “the ways of the world” anymore than me enjoying delicious food or good music is “the ways of the world.” When it comes to sex, “the ways of the world” would be me engaging in fornication, homosexuality or any of the other activities listed in the NT’s multiple lists of what classifies as “sexual immorality.”

Toro said:
For example, there are husbands and wives out there that spent their entire lives fantasizing about who they would end up marrying. Then they meet their husband or wife and they are nothing like that and to some extent, they resent them for not living up to their ideal fantasy.

Well, staying away from inappropriate content no doubt helps prevent some of that.

Toro said:
As a man, I understand, as do many what it is to fantasize and lust after women. The problem ISN'T so much that we enjoy it, its our flesh, it is what it does, constantly battling our spirit. The problem comes when we deceive ourselves and in doing so, find ourselves in disagreement with God.

God says "X" is wrong. If I do "X", but I say its not what God calls it,.... I find myself opposing God.

If God says "X" is wrong and I do "X" but instead I call it as it is, wrong, but I seek Gods face in removing that from my life, it's place in my heart. Then I do not see what I do when I do "X" as "okay" I have then repented and TURNED from my ways and agree His ways are best not my own.

I can not offer God perfection, none of us can..... HOWEVER, I can offer honesty to God, He knows anyway. Me licking my wounds and saying "Im not as bad as another" is meaningless and is done to puff up my own ego rather than humble myself and see how desperately helpless I am on my own to do that which is right.

True; that is a good point. One thing is for sure: I know I’m an irreparably broken sinner doomed to hell without Christ to cover up my sins with His blood. I forget if I said this to you earlier, but I had a big crisis a couple weeks ago where I was terrified for a few days (thanks to some passages in Hebrews), thinking that I was doomed and that there was no hope left for me. It was the scariest thing ever, but in a way I am glad I went through that because it really got me thinking about my depravity and how much I need a savior.

Toro said:
I said before that I highly disagree with mainstream Christianity and this is one reason why, many want to use Christ as and excuse to sin.... that no matter how many sins they willfully run to.... they are forgiven. While I do believe that God is INDEED merciful, He is both a Father AND a Judge.... if ALL we rest on is one side of Him we hold a false image of God and who Christ is. To focus on only Matthew or any verse of scripture alone is another dangerous trap, for the Bible in its entire context is vital to understanding not only who God is, but who we are IN Him.

Oh trust me, I highly disagree with mainstream Christianity too. For instance I had OSAS drilled into me as a young churchgoing kid; I now believe that to be false doctrine that leads to people living in perpetual unrepentant sin, viewing Christ’s sacrifice as little more than a comfort blanket which they believe will always be there to save them in the end. I am open to being proven wrong on that doctrine as with any, but I think that doctrine has caused a lot of damage and “false conversions” among people who very well may never wake up and realize the trouble they’re in if they don’t get right with God. Now, you may be a OSAS believer and totally disagree with me on that; again, I might be wrong, and this is another area that I pray gets cleared up for me one way or another, with time.

Toro said:
I am not one that believes typical Christianity is to not be questioned..... in fact I believe it SHOULD be questioned and challenged...often.. especially mainstream, but it can be a slippery slope when we lean on logic too heavily. Yes, intellect is a gift, to be used, but to be used in the proper context and in the right way. Like the example of Jesus turning stones to bread..... a useful and great gift to have certainly, like intellect, logic and reason.... but it is IF those things could become a hindrance that we need step back, pray (as you say you have) check it against scripture and still seek in prayer some more, always with an open heart and ALWAYS judging the condition of our hearts..... and as I said I am glad that you are at least willing to be shown if you are in error THAT is truly all any of us can do.... for NONE of us have all the answers and none ever will, most certainly not while we are at war between our spirit and our flesh, always divided and pulled heavily towards the will of flesh.

Fair enough. You’re right.

Toro said:
We are all just trying to go in the direction we believe is right........ some of us are trying to figure out the bigger picture, while some are led astray by well meaning misguided individuals.... and then there are those that intentionally cherry pick scriptures to fit their narrative to lead others astray for personal gain.

I have worried about this as well; if it weren’t for the fact that multiple different individuals (who otherwise appear to be quite conservative and traditional-minded in their theology) called out this misinterpretation of the Matthew passage, I wouldn’t buy it either. Because I do fear being led astray.

Toro said:
I do believe I was wrong in stating you twist scripture to fit your narrative and for that I am sorry as I do not believe you to be one intentionally trying to lead people astray but rather, trying to work out your own walk with Christ, which is NOT a bad thing.... for ALL will not be led in the same way. Not all will be taught in the same manner, but ALL will be led to the same body. For a foot need not agree with a hand in how it is to operate... but left to the hand to follow the head and ONLY the head in how it is to go to achieve their purpose. In this case, the head is of course Christ. Though hands are not to tell a foot how they should be.... they can certainly warn of dangers that concern them both.... such as a hand reaching out to snatch a from a camp fire if the foot could not move itself or sense the danger it could be in. For we all have the same enemy.... and it is not eachother.

No worries, I understand. Thank you for your concern and looking out for me.

Toro said:
As for are movies, music, massages, food..... etc wrong/sinful?

That depends on the person and the place it holds in their life/heart.

For example: I love 80s music (I hated it in the 80s)

Is there anything wrong to me listening to 80s music? Well aside from some arguing bad taste...... no.

However, IF I abide in Christ and I in Him...... IF He dwells in me and He tells me "do not listen to this" but I ignore Him..... either my conscience can be seared to the point I do not feel guilt any longer when I listen to the music...... or... He will get tired of my disobedience and no longer dwell with me.

Entertainment, food and all the rest can be GOOD things, but IF they control and direct our lives...... or love them at an extreme where we hold ANY of these things above our desire of God.... they DO become wrong...... NOT because the object in itself is wrong and evil...... but because NOTHING or NO ONE should take first place in our heart...... IF they do, while to one person it is simply.... music, food etc.... to the one putting it before God..... has made it an idol.

What is good/acceptable for one, may be destruction for the other. We should hold all that we have, with gratitude, with love, but be willing to accept that some times the good Lord giveth, but also taketh away, especially if we cling too tightly to what it is we have,do, think, feel..... etc......instead of simply clinging to Him.

Agreed, and I totally get what you mean. There have definitely been things in my life that used to be idols (and likely some I still have which I’m not yet aware of, which I’m praying that the Holy Spirit will reveal to me). I think anything can take the place of God in our heart if we are not careful, so I understand the caution. I love 80s music too, btw.

Toro said:
We need to be very careful where we are, is our conscience seared as to make us numb or is it really acceptable to Christ and that is why we feel no guilt is the question we must be sure of the answer. Not because we have no security in our salvation... but that we see to it that we do not NEGLECT our salvation.

This is an excellent point that I will have to ponder. I do worry about that; I pray that I will get deeply convicted to know beyond a shadow of a doubt if I’m wrong.

Toro said:
I nor anyone else can truly answer this for you, it is an issue between you and God.... the best ANY of us can do is speculative at best.... in your theory I see far more potential for harm than good.... and as such, I just wanted to warn of such danger.... not as a man that sees all, but as a man that sees the speck in your eye, but finds it of far more value to deal with the plank in his own eye before judging the speck in yours....... but..... I would be risking my own conscience to see error and not try to get the person to seek their answer from God rather than logic..... again, not against logic, intellect or the rest.... just that the more we have..... or think we have.,... no matter the case, we need to be careful that we use the gift as a blessing, not let it run without a leash, out of control leading us to every whim of logic, making the gift a curse.

These are fair points, and I truly do appreciate you for voicing them. Thank you very much.

Toro said:
We need to be and seek to be changed into a likeness of Christ, which is hard, impossibly so in this life...... but we even in our failures should ALWAYS seek to be more like Christ, doing the will of the Father, to be made like Christ.... as man was BEFORE the fall of man, BEFORE Adam justified his actions.

IF we seek to be as Adam, we seek to follow that which is pleasing to the flesh..... and in doing we justify or redefine sin. (All of us by nature)

IF we seek to be like Christ..... we seek to follow the Holy Spirit, which..... more often than not......means suffering of the flesh by way of denial. We will absolutely fail......but it we must remain calling it as God sees it not as we see it.

Ask yourself IF you truly believe that Jesus would spend His time fantasizing about women..... He, as our example and our goal..... IF He wouldn't, then we too shouldn't. While that doesn't mean we wont, it doesn't mean we should be okay with falling short of His standard either, for it is because we CAN'T live up to His standard that we will ALWAYS need Him.... but we can deal with our failings honestly... for it is only when it is when we are honest with ourselves about our failings, that we can take those failings, lay them at His feet, repent and ask forgiveness humbly.

For it is only in our humility, that we can truly see our error and in humility truly know how pathetically hopeless and desperate we are without Him and our need for His mercy.

Sorry if this is rambling and hope it makes sense and helps in some way.

You’re right. And no worries, not rambling. Makes a lot of sense and has given me some things to think about. Thanks again, and have a good night.

Jamdoc · Mar 14, 2021

Kettriken said:
I was taught that self gratification is not a sin, but thinking of another while doing so most certainly is. This is using the other person's body without their consent, even if it is "only" in your mind. It does not take a parsing of the old Greek or Hebrew to see the pitfall inherent.

Never the less, the OP has been given such parsing in several posts but still brushes past them and claims that no one has addressed his initial points of exegesis. This is disingenuous for someone who wishes to seriously seek God's will through scripture. Would you, Billy, address the contradicting points?

It would also be of value for anyone reading this thread to note that the OP has spoken several times of women as being "made for man." This does not speak well, in this context (or any other for that matter,) for his ability to view us, purely, as sisters in Christ, no matter what your opinion may be about one's ability to "lust" without "coveting."

He's probably getting it from 1 Corinthians 11

9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.

Originally God just created Man. Man walked with God and something was not right. God gave Adam a bunch of pets, still didn't fulfill the need (which I guess was loneliness), so God made woman from man, for man, to solve the problem of man's loneliness.
But Paul continues, after that fact, that men and women need each other mutually. After the initial creation of woman, which was for man, men came from women, so it balanced out.

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

renniks said:
Of course, it's wrong. It's still lust. I understand the difference between temptation and fantasizing. I've seen many a woman that I was attracted to but didn't let myself go to fantasizing. And I've done my share of actual lusting, too, but not about other guys' wives, generally. If you had no desire to commit acts with them, you wouldn't think about it. That makes no sense whatsoever.

It does make sense, though. And by “actual lusting” do you mean fantasizing, or coveting? And it seems like you don’t understand that there are different kinds/levels of “desire”; most times when a guy fantasizes he just wants a visual aid for a few minutes - it’s not that he is actually thinking “I actually would like to have sexual relations with this person if given the chance.” I can imagine flying a plane in my mind (used to want to be a pilot when I was younger), but that doesn’t mean I’d actually want to fly one (I’d be much too afraid these days). I can imagine riding a scary ride at a theme park, but that doesn’t mean I’d actually get on the ride if a friend asked me to. It’s the exact same thing. Maybe your mind works differently, idk. But no, imagining in my mind for a few minutes does not mean I actually would go commit acts with that person…

Billy93 · Mar 14, 2021

Maria Billingsley said:
I belive on a higher level Jesus Christ of Nazareth is basically pointing out, in this particular example of adultry, that the law has a yoke of bondage far beyond the physical act and that those who claim to keep the law are hypocrites because their heart is full of evil on the inside while portraying righteousness on the outside. He, in other words, reset the bar specifically to expose the heart and its hypocrisy. Blessings

Interesting; I’ll have to think about that. Thanks.

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

Active Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Domer

Domer

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Born Imperishable

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

Regular Member

Active Member

Watching and Praying Always

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency