Where does it say Lust is a sin?

[Solaris]

Where in the scriptures it says that lust is a sin. I know some of the ECF said that, but where in the scriptures is it?

 

[BloodwashedPilgrim]

Where in the scriptures it says that lust is a sin. I know some of the ECF said that, but where in the scriptures is it?

The most blatant reference I can think of off the top of my head would be 1 John 2:15-16, "Do not love the world nor the things of the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world."

Much love in Christ.

 

[hiumble1]

Read the sermon on the mount... Jesus references it...

Also Paul Referenced it...
What it boils down to is the Covetting aspect...

 

[CShephard53]

Matthew five, and it's simply desiring what is forbidden.

 

[dies-l]

Mt. 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Jesus said this in the Sermon on the Mount, where he provided interpretations of various passages of the Law (i.e., the Torah). He is offering here a way of understanding the Law that would become one the defining points of His earthly ministry. Essentially, He is criticizing the way in which the religious leaders of His day have become so focused on outward appearances that they do not seek an genuine change of heart. Such people would go out of their way to make sure that others could see how well they upheld the law. Jesus is suggesting that, rather than focusing on outward appearances, we should focus on our hearts and on our thought life, which is ultimately the source of all sin. Thus, if we do not allow ourselves to harbor anger, then we will not have a problem with murder. If we do not allow ourselves to think (sexually) lustful thoughts, we will not struggle with sexual immorality. If we learn to love people completely, there is no room for resentment (which Jesus claims to be morally equivalent to murder) and there will be no room for lust (reducing other people to sexual objects for our own sexual pleasure, which is no morally different from adultery).

The very next verses say: 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

This reduces the Pharisees' focus on outward appearances to sheer absurdity. If, as the Pharisees claim, obedience to the law requires nothing more than physical self-control (i.e., keeping your hands to yourself), then we should all just cut off those parts of the body that cause us to stumble. Jesus offers an alternative approach: instead of chopping off all of our offensive body parts, we should not even allow the thoughts to enter our minds (i.e., we should learn to regard each other in such a way that lustful and murderous thoughts have no place in our understanding).

 

[Armistead]

The bible is full of the word lust. As far as it being a sin, it depends on the action. There are over 25 different words in the greek/hebrew for lust, some are even used in a good way. Lust is mainly a verb, and action word.

In most places the word lust means to covet..the desire to steal or take what someone else has. In others it's behavior that is out of control.

You can lust for power, material things, ect.

Christ actually lusted to be with the disciples, simply a great urge to be with them.

The problem with lust in the bible, most refer to it as an actual thought of sexual desire. It's never referred to as that. However, there are places the bible states you can sexually lust..out of control sexual desire to do harm or wanting another man's wife.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Where in the scriptures it says that lust is a sin. I know some of the ECF said that, but where in the scriptures is it?

Matthew 5:27-30

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.

Them's fightin' words...

 

[DerSchweik]

Good question - and some excellent responses.

"But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death." James 1:14f.

Whenever the Bible uses the word "lust" in any of its forms (e.g. lust, lusts, lustful, etc.) it is always in a negative context. There are some 35 such references in the Bible (see concordance). Paul talks about lust as a basic component of our fleshly (worldly) nature - Rom 6:12, 13:14, Eph 2:3, etc. Lust in and of itself is not sin, per se, rather is it a portal to sin (James) inasmuch as when we give in to our lusts (desires, temptations to self-indulgence, etc.) that is when we actively "sin." That we have this "flaw" or "defect" in our nature cannot be good for it can never lead to anything good, except in how we battle its temptations with His help.

In Him,

 

[DerSchweik]

Some additional references you might find helpful - these all speak to my previous post that wherever lust is mentioned in the Bible it is done so in a negative context:

Ezekial 23 - his propecy concering Israel using the parable of two women: Oholah and Oholibah.
v. 5 - "And Oholay played the harlot while she was Mine; and she lusted after her lovers..."
v. 7 - "...and with all whom she lusted after..."
v. 9 - "Therefore, I gave her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, after whom she lusted."

This notion of "giving over" generally always refers to God giving us over to our lusts in order to teach us, to discipline us. See Romans 1:24 - "Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them..." and again in v. 26 - "For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions [lusts]; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural..."

And in 1 John 2:16f - "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world."

So again, lust is not of God and is to be avoided by the Christian.

In Him,

 

[DerSchweik]

Where in the scriptures it says that lust is a sin. I know some of the ECF said that, but where in the scriptures is it?

Quick question - newbie here - you mentioned "ECF" and I've seen this reference in several posts by others - for my own curiousity, what is ECF?

Thx.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

Quick question - newbie here - you mentioned "ECF" and I've seen this reference in several posts by others - for my own curiousity, what is ECF?

Thx.

Early church father(s).

 

[Armistead]

Mt. 5: 27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.' 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart

Jesus said this in the Sermon on the Mount, where he provided interpretations of various passages of the Law (i.e., the Torah). He is offering here a way of understanding the Law that would become one the defining points of His earthly ministry. Essentially, He is criticizing the way in which the religious leaders of His day have become so focused on outward appearances that they do not seek an genuine change of heart. Such people would go out of their way to make sure that others could see how well they upheld the law. Jesus is suggesting that, rather than focusing on outward appearances, we should focus on our hearts and on our thought life, which is ultimately the source of all sin. Thus, if we do not allow ourselves to harbor anger, then we will not have a problem with murder. If we do not allow ourselves to think (sexually) lustful thoughts, we will not struggle with sexual immorality. If we learn to love people completely, there is no room for resentment (which Jesus claims to be morally equivalent to murder) and there will be no room for lust (reducing other people to sexual objects for our own sexual pleasure, which is no morally different from adultery).

The very next verses say: 29If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. 30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

This reduces the Pharisees' focus on outward appearances to sheer absurdity. If, as the Pharisees claim, obedience to the law requires nothing more than physical self-control (i.e., keeping your hands to yourself), then we should all just cut off those parts of the body that cause us to stumble. Jesus offers an alternative approach: instead of chopping off all of our offensive body parts, we should not even allow the thoughts to enter our minds (i.e., we should learn to regard each other in such a way that lustful and murderous thoughts have no place in our understanding).

Many do not understand what Christ was teaching in this verse. Mt. 5:27 "I tell you anyone who looks at a women lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his own heart"

The word for lust here means to covet..covet means the desire to take something from another man, usually his wife.

Many would imply this verse means if you look at a woman with a sexual thought or desire, you've commited adultery. This verse in no way implies that. It would better read..If in you mind you would plan to take another mans wife, then you've already commited adultery. If in my mind, I planned to try and take your wife away, then Christ says I've already commited adultery, even though the act hasn't taken place.
It would be the same with most lustful thoughts. If in my mind I would seriously plan a bank robbery, then Christ says I've already robbed the bank.

Sadly, many churches teach lust is sexual desire. When I was a Youth Minister years ago, the youth couldn't understand this verse. The church then taught them that if they had a sexual thought, they were commiting adultery..of course all the youth thought they were adulterous, when they were just normal.

 

[dies-l]

Many do not understand what Christ was teaching in this verse. Mt. 5:27 "I tell you anyone who looks at a women lustfully has already commited adultery with her in his own heart"

The word for lust here means to covet..covet means the desire to take something from another man, usually his wife.

Many would imply this verse means if you look at a woman with a sexual thought or desire, you've commited adultery. This verse in no way implies that. It would better read..If in you mind you would plan to take another mans wife, then you've already commited adultery. If in my mind, I planned to try and take your wife away, then Christ says I've already commited adultery, even though the act hasn't taken place.
It would be the same with most lustful thoughts. If in my mind I would seriously plan a bank robbery, then Christ says I've already robbed the bank.

Sadly, many churches teach lust is sexual desire. When I was a Youth Minister years ago, the youth couldn't understand this verse. The church then taught them that if they had a sexual thought, they were commiting adultery..of course all the youth thought they were adulterous, when they were just normal.

I am not quite sure that your analysis fits well with the context of the passage. For example, Jesus says just before his statement on the correlation between lust and adultery that being angry with one's brother is a sin that is comparable to murder. Essentially, these passages seem to suggest that if even the seed of a sinful action becomes planted in our hearts than we are already well on our way to committing these sins. If we embrace these seeds and allow them to blossom in our hearts and minds (i.e., if we allow unpleasant feelings to blossom into anger and resentment or if we allow sexual thoughts to blossom into lust), then we are no morally better than a person who converts these thoughts into actions. Thus, to correct your metaphor about bank robbery, it seems to me that Jesus would say that if you even covet the money that is in the bank, then you are morally no better than a full fledged bank robber. Jesus' sayings do not seem to suggest that you need to make any concrete plans to commit a sinful act to have allowed the sin to blossom in your heart and to have effected spiritual separation from God, which is the primary consequence of sin.

While I agree with you that lust is more than simply having an illicit sexual thought (i.e., one that reduces another human being to a sexual object to be consumed rather than a person to be loved), it is not much more than that. I believe that the sexual thought or desire blossoms into what Jesus would identify as lust as soon as the person having the thought chooses to indulge in and entertain the thought, rather than refusing to let it take root. This is a hard teaching because all of us have allowed our illicit sexual desires to blossom into lust and all of us have allowed life's irritations to blossom into anger. But, I don't think that Jesus was interested in making us comfortable as much as he was interested in helping us to be like Him and to cooperate with Him in establishing God's Kingdom on earth, which necessarily requires us to seek moral perfection not only in our actions but even in our our thoughts, which will inevitably influence the decisions that we make .

 

[dies-l]

I am not quite sure that your analysis fits well with the context of the passage. For example, Jesus says just before his statement on the correlation between lust and adultery that being angry with one's brother is a sin that is comparable to murder. Essentially, these passages seem to suggest that if even the seed of a sinful action becomes planted in our hearts than we are already well on our way to committing these sins. If we embrace these seeds and allow them to blossom in our hearts and minds (i.e., if we allow unpleasant feelings to blossom into anger and resentment or if we allow sexual thoughts to blossom into lust), then we are no morally better than a person who converts these thoughts into actions. Thus, to correct your metaphor about bank robbery, it seems to me that Jesus would say that if you even covet the money that is in the bank, then you are morally no better than a full fledged bank robber. Jesus' sayings do not seem to suggest that you need to make any concrete plans to commit a sinful act to have allowed the sin to blossom in your heart and to have effected spiritual separation from God, which is the primary consequence of sin.

While I agree with you that lust is more than simply having an illicit sexual thought (i.e., one that reduces another human being to a sexual object to be consumed rather than a person to be loved), it is not much more than that. I believe that the sexual thought or desire blossoms into what Jesus would identify as lust as soon as the person having the thought chooses to indulge in and entertain the thought, rather than refusing to let it take root. This is a hard teaching because all of us have allowed our illicit sexual desires to blossom into lust and all of us have allowed life's irritations to blossom into anger. But, I don't think that Jesus was interested in making us comfortable as much as he was interested in helping us to be like Him and to cooperate with Him in establishing God's Kingdom on earth, which necessarily requires us to seek moral perfection not only in our actions but even in our our thoughts, which will inevitably influence the decisions that we make .

One thing to keep in mind through all of this is the great commandment (i.e., love God by loving your neighbor as yourself). How you think about a person is probably going to affect how you treat the person and will definitely affect how you see the person. Think about the nature of a lustful thought: Let's say a guy sees an attractive woman. His first thought might be "Wow! She's hot!" Okay, at this point, I don't believe he has necessarily lusted after her. His next thought might be: "I'd really like to do .... with her." (or he may simply envision this). At this point, the thought has entered his mind and he can do one of two things with it: He can indulge in this fantasy (i.e., lust), or he can choose to resist this temptation and just let the thought go. If he chooses to engage in lustful thinking (at least as I understand Jesus to understand it), his thoughts and fantasies about this woman are going to be limited to the sexual realm. He is not going to think about how much he would like to have a relationship with her, about how he wants to get to know her thoughts and feelings, about how he would like to serve her in order to make her happy, and so forth. Although it certainly reasonable that a man would think such thoughts, these are not the thoughts of a lustful man, and these are not the thoughts that Jesus was concerned about. The lustful thought is only concerned with fulfilling the thinker's (in this case, the man's) own sexual desires and is not at all concerned with caring for the other person, except perhaps to the extent necessary to convince the other person to engage in sexual conduct to meet the thinker's own desires. The difference between a lustful thought and a loving thought has to do with the direction of the focus: a lustful thought is directed at serving the desires and needs of the thinker; a loving thought is concerned with the needs of the object. A lustful thought is about consuming; a loving thought is about healthy relationship.

I would think it is fair to say that even many of the more liberal members of this forum would not see a sexual act outside of a meaningful relationship as consistent with the Commandment. If it would violate the Commandment to use another person merely for sexual pleasure outside of a meaningful relationship, I believe that Jesus goes one step further in saying that even entertaining the thought of consuming another person in this way is a hateful thought, and is thus contrary to the Commandment.

 

[Armistead]

I am not quite sure that your analysis fits well with the context of the passage. For example, Jesus says just before his statement on the correlation between lust and adultery that being angry with one's brother is a sin that is comparable to murder. Essentially, these passages seem to suggest that if even the seed of a sinful action becomes planted in our hearts than we are already well on our way to committing these sins. If we embrace these seeds and allow them to blossom in our hearts and minds (i.e., if we allow unpleasant feelings to blossom into anger and resentment or if we allow sexual thoughts to blossom into lust), then we are no morally better than a person who converts these thoughts into actions. Thus, to correct your metaphor about bank robbery, it seems to me that Jesus would say that if you even covet the money that is in the bank, then you are morally no better than a full fledged bank robber. Jesus' sayings do not seem to suggest that you need to make any concrete plans to commit a sinful act to have allowed the sin to blossom in your heart and to have effected spiritual separation from God, which is the primary consequence of sin.

While I agree with you that lust is more than simply having an illicit sexual thought (i.e., one that reduces another human being to a sexual object to be consumed rather than a person to be loved), it is not much more than that. I believe that the sexual thought or desire blossoms into what Jesus would identify as lust as soon as the person having the thought chooses to indulge in and entertain the thought, rather than refusing to let it take root. This is a hard teaching because all of us have allowed our illicit sexual desires to blossom into lust and all of us have allowed life's irritations to blossom into anger. But, I don't think that Jesus was interested in making us comfortable as much as he was interested in helping us to be like Him and to cooperate with Him in establishing God's Kingdom on earth, which necessarily requires us to seek moral perfection not only in our actions but even in our our thoughts, which will inevitably influence the decisions that we make .

Actually, the verse supports it..Someone that is angry enough to murder, has already commited murder.
It's more a study of the actual greek words and puncuation. Lust here means to covet..biblically covet means to steal or take that which is not yours. This verse is not defining lust as adultry, it's doing the opposite..it's defining adultery as lust. Just think if sexual thoughts did equal adultery. Every person could biblically divorce their spouse. Not to mention, biblically, we know only married people can commit adultery. I have post on it in detail. I'll find one and come back and link it.

I would not agree that it becomes lust, when we endulge in the thoughts. Obvious, sexual thoughts will be a normal process after puberty and God created puberty.

How do you define that line..a thought naturally comes into our mind, but just how much longer do you have to dwell on it before it becomes sin, a few seconds, a minute, hours.? If that is true, then the natural thought itself is sin. Sexual desire and thought don't happen until after puberty..if puberty is sin, then God would have created sin. We are not asexual before marriage. Puberty, which causes sexual desire, is the force that focuses us on the marriage process. You didn't get married just because your wife could cook...you had sexual desire for her. She was different than say a tree, man, ect.

I think we can only define lust as sin when it actually
becomes harmful behavior. Certainly if it is a process that controls you or cause you to harm others, it has become lust. We must judge our actions on the law of love. Christ said love fulfills all the law..and love can be biblicaly defined as dong no harm to another person. We can't define sin based on man's traditions, do's and don'ts...Sin and holiness are defined by Christ standard of love.

To exalt purity in one thing, but to debase the body and desires that God gave us is another. As with all sin, it is the intent on the action to do harm, that makes it sin.
Sexual thought processes after puberty occur naturally.
Now can this process get warped..sure. But to dwell on sexuality for more than a second, can't make it sin.

It's as silly as telling a teen after puberty not to have sexual thoughts or touch. It's impossible to expect that, because this is a natural response to puberty. The church can create all types of programs to "cure" teens of these "sexual evils", but they do nothing but ingrain patterns of guilt, usually causing sexual or emotional disorders in marriage. Better to teach teens proper sexuality, why it is so strong; why God intended it: how to place limits on it..how to respond to these feelings without harming others. Then maybe the majority of teens wouldn't fall into the corrupt patterns of the worlds view on sex.

 

[dies-l]

Actually, the verse supports it..Someone that is angry enough to murder, has already commited murder.

Jesus does not say "anyone who is angry enough with his brother to murder . . . " He simply says, "anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment." Let's make sure we get the context right and not try to read into the teaching words that are not there.

It's more a study of the actual greek words and puncuation. Lust here means to covet..biblically covet means to steal or take that which is not yours. This verse is not defining lust as adultry, it's doing the opposite..it's defining adultery as lust. Just think if sexual thoughts did equal adultery. Every person could biblically divorce their spouse. Not to mention, biblically, we know only married people can commit adultery. I have post on it in detail. I'll find one and come back and link it.

I don't really know how to respond. First of all, we have drastically different understandings of the word "covet," which incidentally is not included in the passage. I understand the word to refer to a desire for something which does not belong to a person. By my understanding, if a person actually takes the item, then the proper verb is "to steal."

Next, you say that the passage is defining adultery as lust, meaning that according to Jesus, adultery is defined as lusting after a woman. While I think I can agree to this, I fail to see how this creates a meaningful distinction from anything I have said to this point. Thus far, I have pretty much been saying lust=adultery. You are saying the proper way to look at it is adultery=lust. These two equations would seem to say the same thing. If, rather, what you are suggesting is that Jesus is saying that lust only occurs in the act of adultery, then passage would seem to be rather superfluous, don't you think? It would be as though Jesus is saying, "you have heard that adultery is bad. Lust is bad, too. Fortunately, for you, they are basically the same thing, so if you haven't committed an adulterous act, then you really haven't lusted, either. Whew!" This would make no sense in the context of the passage and would defy the plain language of the text.

I would not agree that it becomes lust, when we endulge in the thoughts. Obvious, sexual thoughts will be a normal process after puberty and God created puberty.

Lying is a normal process of childhood. Does that mean that it is not sin? It seems to me that one of the central teachings of the Bible is that sin is a normal part of being human and that we can only be delivered from this by the grace of God. So, how does the fact that lust is normal lead to the conclusion that it is not sinful?

How do you define that line..a thought naturally comes into our mind, but just how much longer do you have to dwell on it before it becomes sin, a few seconds, a minute, hours.? If that is true, then the natural thought itself is sin. Sexual desire and thought don't happen until after puberty..if puberty is sin, then God would have created sin.

The line, imho, is drawn at the point where it becomes a willful choice. I have a ton of thoughts everyday that I don't choose to have. However, I do choose which ones to entertain. If I choose to entertain my resentments, then I separate myself from God and from the people with whom I am angry. If I choose to entertain forgiving thoughts, then I am able to pursue reconciliation with others and ultumately with God. If I choose to entertain thoughts that reduce other people to sexual objects, then I separate myself from them and from God. If I choose to entertain thoughts of love, then I can be drawn spiritually closer to the other and ultimately to God. Although we are given a smörgåsbord of thoughts to choose from each day, I believe we are only held accountable for the ones that we choose to entertain. Simply noticing that a restaurant has chocolate cake does not make one fat. The consequences only come as a result of the choosing to indulge in chocolate cake. I believe that the same can be said of the sexual thoughts that may enter a person's head from time to time.

We are not asexual before marriage. Puberty, which causes sexual desire, is the force that focuses us on the marriage process. You didn't get married just because your wife could cook...you had sexual desire for her. She was different than say a tree, man, ect.

Actually, I married my wife because I love her. Although physcial attraction is an element of the love that I feel for my wife (distinguishing it from the love I feel for, e.g., my family), it is not the defining factor of our relationship, and to the extent that it ever was, prior to our marriage, I believe to have been sinful. I didn't marry her because she could cook, but rather (to use your analogy) because I wanted to cook for her (i.e., she likes my cooking). A healthy marriage, imo is not about wanting what our spouse can do for us, but about wanting to serve our spouse.

I think we can only define lust as sin when it actually
becomes harmful behavior. Certainly if it is a process that controls you or cause you to harm others, it has become lust. We must judge our actions on the law of love. Christ said love fulfills all the law..and love can be biblicaly defined as dong no harm to another person. We can't define sin based on man's traditions, do's and don'ts...Sin and holiness are defined by Christ standard of love.

I suppose love can be defined that way, but I don't think that this is the definition that Christ was using. I believe that when Christ speaks of love, it is an action verb, not just a negative (i.e., love is more than the absence of hate). A more appropriate definition would be that, through our actions, we are building up other people, not just refraining from harming them. I would think, therefore, that a more appropriate way to understand sin, is to see it as any action (or thought) that separates from God and prevents us from building up other people. To reduce a person to a sexual object in our minds prevents us from seeing that person as an object of love, and therefore separates us from that person, and causes our relationship with that person to be separated from God, which ultimately separates us from God.

To exalt purity in one thing, but to debase the body and desires that God gave us is another. As with all sin, it is the intent on the action to do harm, that makes it sin.

Why do you say that God gave us a desire for illicit sexual activity? I don't see where you get this from? The mere fact that we have it does not mean that it is from God. If that were true than moral perfection would not really all that difficult.

I agree with your second statement. But, a lustful thought is an intention to do a harmful act. It is an intention to have illicit sexual relations with another person. The physical impossibility or impracticality of that which one intends to do does nothing to negate the existence of the intent. But, even more than that, a lustful thought (i.e., an illicit sexual desire that is wilfully entertained) is the fruit of a desire to reduce another person to mere object of sexual gratification. It is to place one's own sexual desires above the well-being of the object of one's desire.

It's as silly as telling a teen after puberty not to have sexual thoughts or touch. It's impossible to expect that, because this is a natural response to puberty. The church can create all types of programs to "cure" teens of these "sexual evils", but they do nothing but ingrain patterns of guilt, usually causing sexual or emotional disorders in marriage. Better to teach teens proper sexuality, why it is so strong; why God intended it: how to place limits on it..how to respond to these feelings without harming others. Then maybe the majority of teens wouldn't fall into the corrupt patterns of the worlds view on sex.

I agree with you that to tell teens that lustful thoughts are sinful is dangerous and harmful if we are not also educating teens as to the nature of sin. Before we get into telling them that what they are doing is sinful, we should be sure that they also understand that we are all sinners, that sin is merely anything that is short of moral perfection, and that no one is morally perfect except for God. An inordinate focus on any specific sinful act is unhealthy if it is not accompanied by a healthy understanding of what sin is. We do teens and others a disservice if we talk to them about sin as though most of us are morally perfect and as though sin is not a normal part of being human. At the same time, we should also be mindful that the fact that sin is a normal part of being human and that we are all sinners should not be an excuse for willfully choosing to engage in sinful thoughts or actions.

 

[Armistead]

Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if you look at the Greek verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), is the same word used in the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not covet). In this case, Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to deprive another of his property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then reaffirming a quite traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.

The Greek word here is, of course, epithumia, which also means "covet" and is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew, chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ." It is not coincidence, by the way, that "neighbor's wife" is included with the other PROPERTY listed in this text...like neighbors ox etc...

In this case, Jesus was asserting that adultery does not consist primarily of sexual union of two people, at least one of which is married, but it consists rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take what belongs to another.

Those that teach that sexual thought or desire is lust, thus adultery, had trouble when members declared that they could now divorced based on this verse, even though the sexual act never happened. Pastors may try and form an argument, but I’ve never seen one that makes sense in context. If they believe this, they should allow divorce based on sexual thought alone…and let the whole church seek divorce...amen

I think we agree more than not. As with God given natural puberty, we know this causes the sexual desire/thought processes. What you seem to be saying is the first thought given by God is OK, but if you have another thought on your own, it becomes sin.

So, it gets back to what I described before, We can only base this action on the law of love. Is love an action word, yes! But that is not the basis of the law of love. Paul helps us here.
Romans 13: 8-10
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.


Verse 10, love does no ill to others, it fulfills the law. Notice also the commandments, more don’t than do’s. We could love others to our own harm. Give all our money away; spend more time helping others than with our family, ect. We should love others, but we can only go so far expressing love. But we can seek to do no man harm.

That is something we ALL can do, regardless of our status. The expressions of love are commanded and needed, but that can’t fulfill the law, to do no harm does. That is the basis of the law lf love.

So, getting back to lust, there is only one way you can judge it.. Do these thoughts harm others?

Yes, I married my wife for all the same reasons you did, but I married her first out of sexuality, because she was a female. We are not asexual before marriage. A male friend can provide many of those things you mentioned, but not sexual desire.
​

You imply teems get some lee-way, why? Why start a habitual sin pattern? Why not better stick with the old church doctrines of spankings if caught masturbating; anti-masturbation devices; sex is evil. No, the better way is to teach not to do harm with your sexual thoughts and actions.

In the end, I guess we see it differently, but hopefully want the same result. I want my children to wait until marriage, but moreso, I want them to do no harm. I want what God designs, but I will not trap them into a process of guilt and condemnation to get it.

Dern, that’s got to be my longest post ever…take that as a compliment to your argument on the issue. I can’t say I look forward to this, as it will indeed be a long process. After all, you could gracefully bow out..

 

[dies-l]

Math 5:27-28: An interpretation of this passage is that if you look at the Greek verb (lust more properly translated covet or desire), is the same word used in the Septuagint's translation of the 10th Commandment (not covet). In this case, Matthew has Jesus saying that covetousness, the desire to deprive another of his property, is the essence of adultery. Jesus was then reaffirming a quite traditional understanding of what is wrong with adultery.

I am not sure I quite agree with your assessment, but in light of everything I have said to this point, anything more would result in a match of trying to prove the rightness of our arguments by (figuratively speaking) arguing the loudest. I do believe that Jesus was saying something deeper than just telling us not to covet our neighbor's wife. Thus, he used the expression "You have heard it said . . ., but I tell you . . .", which implies that he is not simply restating the law as it has always been understood, but is adding something new or at least radically altering the understanding of it.

The Greek word here is, of course, epithumia, which also means "covet" and is the word used by the translators of the Septuagint to translate the Hebrew, chamad, in Ex. 21:17 "Thou shalt not COVET ." It is not coincidence, by the way, that "neighbor's wife" is included with the other PROPERTY listed in this text...like neighbors ox etc...

In this case, Jesus was asserting that adultery does not consist primarily of sexual union of two people, at least one of which is married, but it consists rather in the intention, accomplished or not, to take what belongs to another.

I disagree with your assumption that Jesus was concerned with property rights here. Based on Jesus' actions toward women, I have trouble accepting that Jesus was concerned with men disrespecting other men's property rights in their wives. Consider the following verses concerning divorce. It seems that Jesus' teaching on divorce (i.e., "you've heard it was said a man may divorce his wife if he gives her a certificate, but I say that any man who divorces his wife. . . .") was an objection to the very system that treated women as property to be acquired and disposed of at will. This teaching, in light of his interactions with women, seems to suggest that Jesus was much more concerned with the human dignity of women than was the Jewish culture of His day. That is why I think we need to look past the argument that Jesus was only concerned with covetousness of other men's "property interest" in their wives and was far mor concerned with the disrespect that is inherent in lustful thoughts directed at any woman, whether married or not.

Those that teach that sexual thought or desire is lust, thus adultery, had trouble when members declared that they could now divorced based on this verse, even though the sexual act never happened. Pastors may try and form an argument, but I’ve never seen one that makes sense in context. If they believe this, they should allow divorce based on sexual thought alone…and let the whole church seek divorce...amen

A literalist interpretation wouldn't support an argument for divorce here. Jesus says "anyone (implying man) who looks at a woman with lust" commits adultery. And, he says that "if anyone divorces his wife . . ." Thus, both statements are directed at men. The second one makes sense when you consider the relative weakness of women in Jesus' time in matters of marriage and divorce. In response to the situation of women, Jesus was telling men that, if they love their wives as they love themselves, they will not leave their wives in the helpless and often hopeless situation that divorced women often found themselves in in that culture. Reading both of these passages together, we could conclude that Jesus is saying "Men, even though the Pharisees' interpretation of the law says otherwise, you should treat women with dignity and respect, not as a piece of property to be consumed and disposed of at will."

The question arises as to how to apply these verses in a modern context, where women have substantially more power than they did in Jesus' day. It seems to me that the law of love would require us to see the first passage (lust) as applicable to both men and women (i.e., "don't treat people as objects of your sexual desire to be consumed). The second passage is a bit more difficult and beyond the context of this thread.

I think we agree more than not. As with God given natural puberty, we know this causes the sexual desire/thought processes. What you seem to be saying is the first thought given by God is OK, but if you have another thought on your own, it becomes sin.

It seems that a necessary element of sin is choice. In legal terms, we do not call someone a murderer if death results as consequence of a mistake. They might be civilly liable, or if their actions are reckless enough they may be criminally liable for manslaughter. But, if they did not choose to commit the action that resulted in death, or if they chose the action without realizing that death was a realistic result, then they person should not be viewed as a murderer. I think this is a good analogy for sin. If an illicit sexual thought pops into a guy's head, he did not necessarily choose for that thought to be there. But, he can choose whether to nurture it or whether to pursue a different thought. The point at which he chooses to continue in this type of thinking, he is no longer free to blame it on God, or puberty, or nature, or suchlike.

So, it gets back to what I described before, We can only base this action on the law of love. Is love an action word, yes! But that is not the basis of the law of love. Paul helps us here.
Romans 13: 8-10
Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.
The commandments, "You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law.

Do you love yourself by not killing yourself, by not stealing from yourself, and so on? Of course not! If you love yourself, you constantly seek what is best for you. Although Paul points out that the bare minimums that this entails (i.e., not harming), he is not implying here that this all there is to it. Rather, he says that your are to love your neighbor as yourself. There is so much more to love than just avoiding harm.

Verse 10, love does no ill to others, it fulfills the law. Notice also the commandments, more don’t than do’s. We could love others to our own harm. Give all our money away; spend more time helping others than with our family, ect. We should love others, but we can only go so far expressing love. But we can seek to do no man harm.

We are called to go as far in loving others as we would in loving ourselves. Another one of those commands that is painfully difficult when we realize the full import of what it says.

So, getting back to lust, there is only one way you can judge it.. Do these thoughts harm others?

I don't see how you come to this conclusion. I would say that if you harbor a consumerist attitude toward other people (viewing them as no more than an object of your sexual desire), then you are not loving them as you love yourself.

Yes, I married my wife for all the same reasons you did, but I married her first out of sexuality, because she was a female. We are not asexual before marriage. A male friend can provide many of those things you mentioned, but not sexual desire.

Yes, I did marry my wife with the understanding that we would have sex once we were married. And that is perhaps the reason that I chose a woman and that I chose someone to whom I was not already related. But, I still stand behind the fact that the ultimate reason for marrying is not sexual desire, but rather desire to live in a loving and sacrificial permanent relationship with that person. Once married, the sexual desire I have for her is not illicit, so long as I am respecting her dignity, so any such thoughts I may entertain are generally not "lustful."
​

You imply teems get some lee-way, why? Why start a habitual sin pattern? Why not better stick with the old church doctrines of spankings if caught masturbating; anti-masturbation devices; sex is evil. No, the better way is to teach not to do harm with your sexual thoughts and actions.

I don't see where you get the impression that I would give teens leeway here. I am just saying that we need to realize that we are all sinners covered by grace before we get into talking about sin. We should not see sin as this thing to beat each other over the heads with, but rather as an indicator of our need for growth and for God's grace. The consequences of sin are often their own punishment (alienation from other people and from God).

One problem with the whole "be it harm none" approach is that it begs the question: who gets to decide what is harmful and what is not? "Love your neighbor as yourself" is potentially equally vague, except that the teachings of Jesus and of the Apostles give us enough tangible examples that we are able to form a deeper understanding of what this looks like. So, when Jesus says "whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her" the next question should be not whether such lustful thoughts are unloving (Jesus already said that they are), but rather why they are unloving (which I believe demonstrates that harm is done even when we so much as think of another person in a way that treats them as property or is otherwise unloving toward them).

In the end, I guess we see it differently, but hopefully want the same result. I want my children to wait until marriage, but moreso, I want them to do no harm. I want what God designs, but I will not trap them into a process of guilt and condemnation to get it.

I don't have children, but when I do I want them to wait for marriage. My more immediate concern, however, is for myself. I want to learn to love others as I love myself. According to Jesus, imo, this means that I have learn to change the way I think about other people, rather than just trying to change the way I act toward them. The source of sin is in our hearts and minds, not in our bodies; if I am going to be truly free to love others, I need to start at the source, which is my thought life.

Dern, that’s got to be my longest post ever…take that as a compliment to your argument on the issue. I can’t say I look forward to this, as it will indeed be a long process. After all, you could gracefully bow out..

I'm not leaving that easily. But, seriously, there comes a point when two people have to agree to disagree. I am sure that somewhere buried in our dialogue there is an underlying agreement. But, I am not sure where that is. I do think, however, that on the areas where we clearly disagree, I am not likely to be convinced by you (nor you by me). But perhaps in the process of the conversation we will both learn to see things in a somewhat new and more profound way than before.

God Bless.

 

[Armistead]

Obvious, each can study doctrine and come to a different conclusion. It's a wonder we only have a few thousand doctrines.

My thought processes lined up with yours for years..through bible college, as a youth minister, ect.
Certain events caused me to question and test my beliefs. One being a young man in our church committed suicide over not being able to beat masturbation. My own experience dealing with MB, ect..(that was long ago) Sadly, the young man sought so hard to beat this, because he thought it adultery as was told it was sin. I can remember dropping to my knees in prayer right after masturbating. I would of course form a plan to beat it "next time"...and of course another next time always came.

I was in a IBC at the times and the teachings lined up with what I now argue against. I see so many youth sincere as they can be at that age, living in guilt over sexuality. Not to mention it was a process they couldn't beat, regardless of all the programs created for them, such as "every man's battle", ect. Not to mention all those condemning them went through the same thing.

I think we have to be careful to say it's sin, but there is grace for it. In the end, it leads more to a guilt complex.
But I'll get into that another another time.

Those that profess to provide psychotherapy for disturb people find that at least half of all emotional disorders are complicated by a kind of devoted, but mistaken religeous piety. There is someting terribly wrong when a whole adult life can be wrecked by guilt feelings caused by ignorant parental disapproval at a teens discovery that he is now sexual due to puberty. Most teens struggle with continual guilt and daily repentance. It ingrains in the mind a process that most take into adulthood. The sexual disorders for Christian adults are too numerous to mention.

I think this so called "purity" produces the nastiest variety of narrowmindedness. Not that this reflects on you, you have a more balanced approach..but the foundation that these desires are sin and that grace is the answer lacks a real workable approach. We need grace, I'm not saying that, but we need to apply grace correctly.

Rest assured, I have children, two in their teens, one 10. Children start masturbating at about 4. It just feels good, there is no sexual thought. The habit is set before puberty..but now that God introduces sexual desire,,,it becomes sin.

To apply grace when needed if fine..to insist it's needed over a continual life long process...is hypocrisy. I'm not say some don't beat sexual desires. Maybe you didn't have this growing up. Maybe you beat masturbation...99% don't and for most it remains a lifelong process and some thoughts are going to be apart of that process. Here is where the church should guide and teach correct sexuality..

I'll come back and debate some more..you've wore me out on this subject tonight. I'll try to be more clear.

 

[Johnnz]

Many Christians confuse normal sexuality and lust, so that virtually anything sexual unless directed to ones spouse is deemed to be lust. That is not at all helpful or accurate. We can be very sexual without lusting, but this is an inconceivable concept for many on the forum.

John
NZ