Lust: A New Perspective

There was a post recently titled “Understanding Lust” that sparked quite a discussion. After reading the post and comments I took a closer look at the issue of lust. I started to write it as a comment, but it got too long so I am putting it in a new post. I am open to discussion on this so feel free to comment.

The main issue in question is: Jesus said that whoever looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart. (Matt. 5:28) And the traditional understanding of lust has been: When you look at someone who is not your spouse and enjoy the sight and/or get aroused by them. This seems to be pretty straightforward at first glance. So much so that the traditional understanding of lust has been that anytime you cast a second look at someone else you have committed adultery in your heart.

But after looking closely at the text, I’m not so convinced that is the case.

I have two reasons for thinking this:

1. The context of Jesus’ statement

2. The original Greek word used

Let’s look at the context first. Jesus was talking to his disciples. (Matt 5:1-2) And shortly into his talk he makes a statement that, I think, puts his entire “Sermon on the Mount” into perspective. He says this important statement: “But I warn you—unless your righteousness is better than the righteousness of the teachers of the law and the pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of Heaven!” (Matt. 5:20 NLT)

He immediately elaborates on this by saying, “You have heard that our ancestors were told, ‘You must not murder. If you commit murder, you are subject to judgment.’ But I say, if you are even angry with someone, you are subject to judgment!” (Matt. 5:21-22 NLT) So Jesus is pointing out that just because you “keep the law” it doesn’t mean you are righteous. He is revealing the inner heart of a person.

The teachers of the Law and Pharisees were extremely legalistic. They took great pride in their ability to “keep the law.” They thought they were righteous before God because they took great care to observe the law. The problem is, as Paul would later say, “No one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are.” (Rom 3:20 NLT) The Pharisees thought that since they had never committed murder, they were righteous. But here Jesus points out that is not the case. So just because you kept the law that says, “Do not murder” doesn’t mean you are righteous. For “human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires.” (James 1:20 NLT)

Jesus is elaborating on his original thesis from verse twenty that our righteousness must be better than the Pharisee’s righteousness. In other words, since we cannot be made right with God by keeping the law we must go beyond that. It has to be an internal righteousness. But how do we get that? Paul would later explain it this way: “But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago. We are made right with God by placing our faith in Jesus Christ. And this is true for everyone who believes, no matter who we are.” (Rom 3:21-22 NLT)

This is how our righteousness can “surpass that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.” (NIV) Our righteousness must be based solely on Jesus and not on our ability to keep the law. Because it is impossible for us to keep the law.

But the Pharisees took great pride in their ability to keep the law. This is why they constantly got so angry with Jesus. Because Jesus was constantly pointing this fact out and showing them it was wrong. And that is really what Jesus is teaching in this sermon. His key point is that our righteousness is not from keeping the law.

This is why he says that even though the law says a man can give a woman a certificate of divorce, he says not to divorce at all except for unfaithfulness. He also says not to make oaths, even though the law says you can. It’s all part of the same theme: Your righteousness must be better than that of the Pharisees. And he continues with this theme for two more chapters. But the heart of the message is: Don’t rely on your ability to “keep the law” in order to be righteous. Your righteousness must surpass that of keeping the letter of the law.

So with this in mind, we see that Jesus isn’t so much teaching “Do not get angry.” If that were the case then Jesus would have sinned, for even Jesus got angry. Paul even said, “In your anger don’t sin and don’t let the sun go down on your anger.” (Eph 4:26) But he doesn’t say “Don’t get angry.” So he isn’t teaching that we should never get angry or that anger doesn’t have a place. He is simply pointing out that just because you keep the technical part of the law by not committing murder, that doesn’t make you righteous. (Interesting side note, I’ve never seen anyone accused of “murder in their heart” because they got angry.)

So when we come to the teaching on adultery, he isn’t teaching, “Don’t lust.” He is pointing out that just because you keep the technical part of the law that says, “Don’t commit adultery” that doesn’t make you righteous. The Message Bible puts it this way: “But don’t think you’ve preserved your virtue simply by staying out of bed. Your heart can be corrupted by lust even quicker than your body.”

So that’s the heart of what Jesus is pointing out in this entire sermon that lasts three chapters. (Matt 5-7) The point isn’t that he is teaching us what TO DO, but showing us that there is nothing we CAN DO in order to be righteous! For no matter how hard we try to “keep the law” we will fail. Paul would later explain that “God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were.” (Rom 5:20a NLT)

So the message Jesus is giving us isn’t “Don’t lust,” but rather: “Keeping the law by not committing adultery isn’t making you more righteous. Other things that you aren’t even thinking of are making you unrighteous. So your righteousness must be better than that—your righteousness must be based on faith in Christ alone. Not your ability to keep the law.”

Now let’s look at the original Greek words used. The Greek word translated “lust” is epithumeo. It is formed from two words: epi which means “focused on” and thumos which means “an outburst of passion.” Passion here is thought of in terms of angry passion, such as rage. It has to do with having a passionate desire. So, in short, it means passionate desire or strong desire.

But this isn’t always a bad thing. In Luke 22:15 Jesus was eating the Passover with his disciples and he says, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you.” The Greek word for desired here is epithumeo. In fact, in the Greek it actually says, “with desire I have desired this Passover.” And two variations of epithumeo are used back to back. So it is as if Jesus is saying, “I have really, really desired to eat this Passover with you.” In other words, he was saying that he was looking forward to this.

So desire and even strong desire isn’t bad. We can look forward to the weekend, we can look forward to a vacation or we can desire to buy a new car. All of these are what epithumeo means.

So we must keep this in mind when we read that if “anyone looks at a woman with lust (epithumeo) he has already committed adultery in his heart.”

We can conclude from this that simply noticing an attractive person of the opposite sex is NOT lust. Even looking at them for an extended time is not lust. (Commonly known as “checking them out.”) Even feeling arousal at the sight of an attractive person is not lust. Even thinking of that person later and feeling aroused again isn’t lust. Rather, that is simply the normal, healthy, biological function of your body at the sight of the opposite sex. That is how God made you. In fact, that is actually a good sign because it means you are healthy and normal.

But remember that epithumeo is from epi (focus on) and thumos (passion). So what the word means is that when we go beyond simply noticing or being aroused by an attractive person and move into a realm where we are focused on that passion, that is where we get into trouble. I personally don’t care for the word “lust” here. I don’t think it is an accurate portrayal of what epithumeo means. “Covet” would be a better way to translate it.

In fact, in Exodus 20:17 which is part of the Ten Commandments, it says, “Do not covet your neighbor’s house, wife, male or female servant, etc.” In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Greek word used here for covet is epithumeo.

Epithumeo has more to do with desiring something that belongs to someone else so bad that you want to take it for yourself. This is why covet works better. So a better translation of Matthew 5:28 would be, “Anyone who covets a married woman has committed adultery in his heart.” This doesn’t mean simply noticing or seeing a woman or even being aroused by a woman. This means deciding in your heart that you want another man’s wife for yourself. And that specifically means another man’s wife (or another woman’s husband for the ladies.) It doesn’t mean any woman. It only applies to a married woman or man.

The only way to covet something is for it to belong to someone else. So a single woman or man doesn’t belong to someone else. But a married woman belongs to her husband and a married man belongs to his wife. So technically none of this applies to looking at a single person. This is only if you covet a married person. This is a big difference from the traditional teaching on lust.

So many people have been under so much guilt for noticing, looking and even enjoying the sight of the opposite sex. But we see here that it is completely unfounded. For simply noticing an attractive person is normal and to be expected. Even if we are married and we notice another person, that is not what epithumeo is saying. Even if the other person is married and we “check them out” that is not what epithumeo is saying. Even if we get aroused by looking at them, whether they are single or married, that is not what epithumeo is saying.

What epithumeo means is you see a woman who is married to someone else and you decide that you want to take her from her husband and make her yours. Or you see a man who is married to someone else and you decide you want to seduce him and take him for yourself. THAT is what epithumeo means. That isn’t lust, but coveting.

Now this can also include a person who is married and strongly desires someone else, married or not. If I simply notice and enjoy the sight of another woman I have not committed epithumeo. Even though I am married. However, if I start to want that woman then I have committed epithumeo because I am married. So she is off limits to me because of that. But this still refers to the idea that I am doing more than just looking. I am desiring her for myself in spite of the fact that she is off limits to me for some reason. Either because I am married or she is married or both.

So we see that the traditional teaching of lust being defined as “looking at and being aroused by someone else” doesn’t even apply to Matthew 5:28. That is not what Jesus meant. He is saying, “The law says ‘don’t commit adultery’ and you may think you are righteous because you don’t physically get into bed with someone else’s spouse. But if you covet someone else’s spouse and want them for yourself, you have already committed adultery in your heart.”

This doesn’t mean you can’t look at or notice or enjoy the sight of the opposite sex. You can’t help but do that because that’s a normal response. What we have to be careful of is desiring to take someone else’s spouse for ourselves.

King David is a good example of this. If we look closely at the incident with Bathsheba we see the difference. David saw Bathsheba bathing and obviously enjoyed the sight of her. Which means he also saw her nude. He sent for her and slept with her. She comes up pregnant so David arranges for her husband to come home from war. He doesn’t spend the night with her because he can’t do that in good conscience while his brothers are still at war. So David sends him back out to war and arranges to have him killed. Then David takes Bathsheba for his own wife.

Now look at what Nathan the Prophet says to David. He says, “I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you more. Why did you despise the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes? You struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and took his wife to be your own.” (2 Sam 12:8-9 NLT)

Notice a couple of things: Nathan doesn’t condemn David for “lusting” after Bathsheba. He doesn’t condemn him for watching her bathing or enjoying the sight of a nude woman. He doesn’t even condemn David for sleeping with her. And he says that God gave David his multiple wives and would have given him more if he wanted. The ONLY thing that Nathan mentions is that he killed Uriah so that he could take Uriah’s wife for himself. That is what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 5:28. That is the idea behind epithumeo. That is coveting someone else’s spouse.

So from this, we learn that God doesn’t have a problem with us looking at the opposite sex. He doesn’t have a problem with us enjoying the sight of the opposite sex. Even if they are nude! Notice God never even condemns David or Bathsheba for having sex even when they were both married to someone else. The only thing mentioned is that he coveted Bathsheba for himself. So much so that he made arrangements to make it happen. THAT is the biblical idea behind lust. Not just noticing an attractive member of the opposite sex. Or even being aroused by them. It has more to do with coveting them and wanting them for yourself even though they are off limits to you for some reason. Either because they are married or you are married. The minute you do that is when you have committed adultery in your heart.

Now that doesn’t mean we can be rude and stare and leer at people and make them uncomfortable. But it does mean we don’t have to feel guilt for noticing someone of the opposite sex and enjoying it. It means we don’t have to feel guilty for checking someone out or being aroused by someone of the opposite sex. I would even go so far as to say that we don’t have to feel guilt for having a little crush on a movie star. Or even if we were to flirt a little with someone we found attractive. Or even if we masturbated to the thought of someone we saw that we thought was attractive or a favorite movie star.

The point is Matthew 5:28 and the phrase “Look at a woman with lust” has been greatly misunderstood due to a lack of examining the context and the Greek word used. And as a result, many people have been under a false sense of guilt for being a normal, healthy human being who is responding properly to the God-given nature to be attracted to the opposite sex.

God is not a prude. He is the one who made us to have sexual desires. He is not oblivious to the fact that we will notice and be aroused by the opposite sex. He made it that way! He just simply says, “Don’t break up a marriage over it.” Don’t take someone for yourself who belongs to someone else through marriage. That is what Matthew 5:28 is saying. That is what epithumeo means. We don’t have to feel guilt or shame for simply being a normal, healthy human. Nor do we have to suppress our sexuality out of fear that we might “commit adultery in our heart.” God has given us our sexuality for our enjoyment. We don’t have to be afraid of it. We can enjoy it and celebrate it. For that is the reason we have it.

Click on a heart to thank the author of this story!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not one of your favorites!

Help us understand why.

32 replies
  1. leenoos says:

    Great article! Mostly agree! I think Biblical lust is way misunderstood!

    I would add "discontent" and maybe "idolatry" as a component to "covet", though. I don't think coveting is only about desiring to make somebody else's thing your thing. I think coveting is a disordered, earnest desire to make something that isn't rightly yours, yours. Coveting is dwelling on something so much it becomes idolatrous and says to God "what you've given me isn't enough".

    So I don't think we can let ourselves totally off the hook just because someone is unmarried. You can covet a car in a showroom just as much as you can covet a car in your neighbor's yard. However, there's nothing wrong with desiring a new car if it's not a disordered, idolatrous, covetous, discontented type of desire.

    However, I'm with you 100% on the rest. Lust/coveting is not about appreciation, desire, arousal, etc. I fully believe you can enjoy, desire (in the sense that they are desire-able), and be aroused the sight or thought of a sexy person without sin. I like your line "God is not a prude."

  2. Adam Rose says:

    Finally someone put into words how I feel about this subject!
    This is exactly what some deep study and prayers have brought me.
    Lust is so misunderstood by so many well meaning Christian men struggling with condemnation over this subject. (Yes that's condemnation, not conviction!). They all feel horrible that a beautiful woman draws their eye or arouses them and the feel deep guilt and shame but no solution or way out. The Holy Spirit is not there to guide them out.
    I have always been so confused by men who get all down on themselves for being naturally attracted by the sight of a healthy woman. It has never bothered me that I find certain women very pleasing to the eyes. It wasn't until I got older, (late teens) that people started bombardment of "looking and admiring is lust" that I started feeling ashamed of my sexuality. It took years to unravel the programming. Eventually through some deep study and prayers I realized the enemy was trying to destroy my god given sexuality. Now I feel absolutely no shame in admiring a shapely woman. (No oggling, just art appreciation)
    A word of warning. If you have a lust problem, don't use this is an excuse. It won't work. The holy Spirit will convict you.
    I always know when my admiring "look" turns to something unhealthy. I get that gentle nudge that says, "yes she's beautiful, but that's enough now. She doesn't belong to you. Let he go from your eyes/mind."

  3. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    Well done, Horny hubby, well done! Fantasies are not lust! Also, coveting is the same as lusting (Romans 7:7). David purposefully planned to get Bathsheba. God bless you hornyhubby. How is your wife?

  4. Anonymous says:

    I read your article with attention, but I can only disagree. You say that epithumeo means "to covet", or "to want". Okay. I agree with you on this. Thinking that a woman is beautiful is not a sin. Feeling aroused by her, as long as you're not letting this happen on purpose, is not a sin, but just a sensation you can't choose to have or not to have (but you can decide what to do with it).
    Therefore, the whole point is this: where is the limit between just being naturally aroused (thus, logically, unwittingly aroused) and coveting? For you, masturbating after a woman (or a man), thinking about having sex with her/him doesn't mean that you want/covet this person. But that is a totally subjective and personal point of view. For me, it's clear that if I have sexual thoughts about that person, I'm wanting that person. If I'm thinking about eating a chocolat bar I just saw in a store, I'm wanting that chocolat bar. I covet that chocolate bar. And Jesus is telling me not to do so with a women (women aren't chocolat bars, after all, isn't it?). Your definition of coveting seems to be "to have the concrete project to own it". It's a very narrow definition of the verb "to covet", and, once again, a subjective one.

    In fact, with your argumentation goes even further: you're telling me that it's not a sin to enjoy nude photographies, and you're telling me that it's not a sin to masturbate while I enjoy those phorographies. You're telling that anything goes as long as I don't have the concrete project to have sex with that person. But think about it: this justifies pornography. A person looking at pornographic films or images has hardly the concrete project to sleep with the persons he sees. So it's not a sin? Have you even thought about that? You can't just put such a trap in front of inexperienced people. It's not only dangerous for them, it's also dangerous for you, in the eyes of God.

    Finally, make something clear for me, please: are you really suggesting that David sleeping with Bathsheba wasn't a sin? Because I found difficult to give credit to the rest of your argumentation after reading that line. Adultery is clearly a sin and David clearly comitted it. Nathan doesn't need to mention it for us to understand it, just like the Bible doesn't need to tell us that Lot sleeping with is daughters is a sin for us to know it.

    One last thing: the point of a christian life is not to feel shameless. Our aim is to pursue righteousness in the love of God, with the faith in Christ, and then feel the peace of God in your heart. Trying to remove the shame by calling unrighteous things righteous is not the solution. We must get out of our prison, not paint flowers in our cell. That's the key to find peace.

  5. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    @Anonymous – we already have righteousness – Christ's imputed righteousness on our account when we're saved, and no, we're not "wanting" that person just because we masturbate to the thought of them that's ridiculous. Lust/coveting is fantasizing about going after that person, thinking about how you can get them to sleep with you.

    Also, as Christians, why should we feel shame? Christ died for ALL ours sins, and if He has forgiven us, why shouldn't we? Of course, he wasn't suggesting it wasn't sin for David to sleep with Bathsheba, I don't know where you got that idea, but the thing is, he coveted her, and that's what happened. I don't like how you are saying that Hornyhubby is "setting a trap" when all he's doing is trying to get rid of the rubbish that was taught for centuries.

  6. Anonymous says:

    @ Harper Shelby Thornton – Please stop calling other contributors "ridiculous" because they have different beliefs from yours. There are many readers on MH, myself included, who disagree with your very narrow interpretation of Scripture on this subject.

  7. John says:

    Anonymous ….you make some excellent points. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. Masturbating to thoughts of an actual person one is not married to is just simply lust coveting etc. I tell young people to keep it nameless and faceless so they are not masturbating about actual people before marriage. I used to be in bondage and jerk off to real friends neighbors etc. It creates a messsed up mind. Especially as a young person one can even just masturbate on the physical sensations alone. And it's great. No real person or picture of one need be involved

  8. Anonymous says:

    Completely agree with anonymous on this one. Imagine someone who has an issue with pornography reading that masturbating about naked images of a woman is not sinful simply because that woman can not be physically pursued. I think what anonymous is correctly pointing out that such an opinion could cause another to fall under the misapprehension that such an act is ok and acceptable in God's eyes. Not so. Love is true, and that means love is truthful. I believe that anonymous is trying to convey, in a loving and truthful way, how some parts of this article could be dangerous to others.

  9. LoveHer says:

    Completely agree with anonymous on this one. Imagine someone who has an issue with pornography reading that masturbating about naked images of a woman is not sinful simply because that woman can not be physically pursued. I think what anonymous is correctly pointing out that such an opinion could cause another to fall under the misapprehension that such an act is ok and acceptable in God's eyes. Not so. Love is true, and that means love is truthful. I believe that anonymous is trying to convey, in a loving and truthful way, how some parts of this article could be dangerous to others.

  10. ladygarden says:

    Hello everyone, may I please ask for your advice? A girlfriend of mine went in for her scheduled OB/GYN appointment.
    When her doctor was about to begin the exam, he commented "Oh, you shaved your legs for me today." Needless to say, she was shocked and mortified. The rest of the exam proceeded normally without any further awkwardness. (as the damage was already done)

    Should she report him?

    Thank you and remember–
    You Are Loved!

    LadyGarden

  11. HornyHubby says:

    @Anonymous: Thank you for your reply. I understand where you are coming from. So let me clarify. What I am focusing on is the Biblical idea of lust. Word definitions change over the years so if we want to "rightly divide the word" we need to understand how THEY used the word at the time they were writing it. And everything I see is that lust is the Greek word epithumeo. And that definition coincides with "covet." To covet something is more than to simply look at it. This is why I say that David and Bathsheba having sex wasn't the problem. Otherwise Nathan would have mentioned it. Instead he said, "You had several wives and I would have given you more." By saying this, God was essentially saying it was okay for David to have multiple wives. That was a cultural issue, sure, but God apparently didn't have a problem with that aspect. The issue was that he took someone else's wife. And it wasn't even an issue until he killed her husband so he could take her for himself.

    This indicates to me that David having sex with her wasn't the problem. It was killing her husband and taking her for herself. And that is the biblical idea of coveting, or epithumeo, which is often translated as lust. That's why lust is the wrong translation for it. Because our definition of lust is to check someone out. But we have to go to the biblical definition. Which means to covet them. And coveting is more than just looking.

    Notice that David saw Bathsheba bathing and nothing was said. Then he sent for her and slept with her. Nothing is said. She gets pregnant and he brings her husband home. Nothing was said. But it wasn't until after he had her husband killed that God sent Nathan the prophet. So it's simply a matter of looking at what the text says and what their culture was.

    I understand your concerns about this giving a license to look at porn. But that can be cleared up. The word pornography is from the Greek words "porneia" and "grapho." Porneia means sexual immorality and grapho means writing or pictures. We get our word graffiti and graphics from grapho. So it's sexually immoral pictures or writings. And in 1 Cor 6:18 Paul says to flee from sexual immorality. The word used here is porneia. So the Bible is clear about sexual immorality. We should flee from it. And since porn is sexually immoral pictures, then we should flee. But that doesn't mean we are blind. Simply noticing and enjoying the sight of the opposite sex isn't what is considered sexual immorality. In fact, the context of 1 Cor 6 is joining to a prostitute. (And I've heard some good arguments that he really only meant the temple prostitutes that were in Corinth at the time, not just a common prostitute. Because it was temple worship of another god. But that's another discussion.) The point remains that the act of joining to a prostitute is more than just looking at a woman. And that's the point we have to realize. The Bible's definition of epithumeo is different from our definition of lust.

  12. HornyHubby says:

    @Harper: Thanks for your comments! To answer your question: My wife is doing much better. We think the medicine she is on now is working much better for her than the last one. She goes in a couple of weeks to see the doctor for a follow up and we'll see how her tests results look and what her levels are at that time. Thanks for asking!

  13. HornyHubby says:

    @leenoos: I'm simply going off the Biblical idea of coveting. And that idea is to want something that currently belongs to someone else. That's why in the Ten Commandments it says to not covet your neighbor's wife, donkey, etc. The point is that it belongs to your neighbor. A single person, by definition, does not belong to someone. So if I covet another man's wife I am in violation of this command. But if I desire a single woman, she isn't someone else's wife so it isn't coveting, which means it isn't epithumeo, which means it isn't lust. So now it's more of a cultural issue. Notice how many people in the Bible had multiple wives and concubines, yet God never condemns it. And with David he seems to even encourage it. But Bathsheba was another man's wife. She belonged to someone else. So that was the violation.

    So to use your illustration, I would say desiring the car on the showroom is NOT coveting. Because it is available for anyone to take it. But the car in your neighbor's yard belongs to your neighbor. Desiring that car IS coveting. And that's the difference. But simply looking at and admiring the car isn't coveting. It's only when you want the car in your neighbors driveway to be in YOUR driveway that you cross the line.

    And again, Jesus' point wasn't to tell us "Don't lust." The point was to tell us that our righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees. We must get our righteousness from a source other than the Law because the law cannot make anyone righteous. He was pointing out that just because you stay out of bed with someone doesn't mean you are righteous. That was what the Pharisees thought. And our righteousness must surpass that. Which means our righteousness must be based on faith in Christ alone. That was the ultimate point of all this.

  14. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    Anonymous I didn't call you ridiculous, I said that what you were saying was ridiculous. There's a difference. Don't accuse me falsely of "having a narrow interpretation" when I actually believe what the Bible says. You couldn't even produce scriptures to support your claims, and yet you insult me by saying I have a "narrow interpretation".

  15. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    John you've had your say already, and again, your definition is lust/coveting is WRONG – I've told you that's thinking about how you can possess that person sexually without marrying them first, THAT'S what it means. I think you and some of the others have a Pharisaical and legalistic attitude about this because, sorry, masturbating while thinking of someone is NOT NOT NOT sin! And just because you have a "messed up mind" as you say, doesn't mean that others will. Not everyone is going to have that same experience just because you did. And where did you get the idea that it's possible to do it without thoughts or visual aids, because it really isn't.

    LoveHer, No, it's people like you and that prudish attitude that is dangerous to others, not us, who encourage the others to express their sexually rather than repress it, and brutalize them for doing what comes naturally.

    This article is amazing and spot on, no less. Though I'm KJV only and don't read the same Bible version as Hornyhubby, at least he was able to produce scriptures, not to mention using the Greek words, to support his claims, yet I saw no scriptures produced from any of you.

  16. PassionateForChrist says:

    Ok, I'm gonna risk getting hit here too… In advance, I wanna state that I'm not seeking to have this become a big discussion, especially not if the basic love and respect we should have towards one another here in the MH community (even if we differ in perspective and opinion at times) is getting lost along the way in the heat of arguments. Harper, with great love in my heart for you, please hear me out – you are treating Anonymous, John and LoveHer unfairly here… none of them has talked about or suggested repressing our sexuality or suppressing our God-given drives, all they rightfully voiced was proper caution towards what is going on in our minds while we do it – and the points they have made are thoroughly valid. The Bible tells us to be cautious about what's going on in our minds (and in our hearts) and to listen to our inner voice (yours can differ from others – what may be right for you personally, may not be right for someone else, and there is nothing wrong about this – let the peace of God rule in our hearts about what we do and how we do it; let His Spirit be the ultimate umpire about what's in and what's out for us personally, especially in those areas that are open for discussion, in those personal places of decision-making). Harper, you know I'm not a prude. And like me, John, LoveHer and Anonymous are not prudish. John is right in saying that one can masturbate to the physical sensations alone, without picturing anyone, and get great satisfaction from it – it is possible, Harper, I have done so a lot, especially in the beginning of my journey with masturbation in my then new-found freedom in Christ in the area. I agree with John and LoveHer and Anonymous on what they shared, and if I may remind us all, what they voiced is what HH himself has voiced a few years ago in his Defense of Masturbation… and just like he discerned it wisely back then, so do John and LoveHer and Anonymous now. In a nutshell, HH shared back then that men and women can feel aroused naturally by stimuli in the outside world every day, and that's ok, that's part of our respective God-given design, but marrieds ought to focus their mental pictures on their spouse only, seeking sexual release to their spouse only – in fantasy as in reality; and singles can either focus on the physical sensations and refine their awareness of their own body through it or fantasize about the beauty of sex in marriage with a faceless future spouse. I do not agree with every point HH made here but that's just my standing. I will not seek out the Scriptures to make my points now but they are in the Bible – David's sin did not begin with the murder of Bathsheba's husband, it began when he slept with her. He saw her and was aroused – nothing wrong about that – temptation hit him and he gave into it and did what was sin by God's standard (sleeping with a married woman – adultery); she got pregnant and to cover up his sin, David called for her husband to come home and sought to set him up to sleep with her that night, so he would think that he would be the father of Bathsheba's child; but David's plan backfired, for her husband was an honorable man and didn't feel right about enjoying his wife while his comrades were still in the battlefield, where he felt he should be too at that moment – he was a dutiful man; so he didn't go home to be with Bathsheba but slept outside and then headed back to the battlefield; then, David decided to have Bathsheba's husband killed in the battlefield for no other reason but to try to cover up his initial sin of sleeping with her, her unborn child being the proof for it; that's also what God confronts David with through Nathan when He makes David face the consequences of his sins with Bathsheba and takes the child's life and pays David back for what he did to Uriah by taking all of David's wives and giving them to someone close to him to sleep with them – what David did in secret was the initial sin (adultery) and it had a horrific ripple effect into more and more sin (2 Samuel 12:11-15). His failure to be properly and wisely on guard against temptation (in all its subtle forms) cost him greatly in the end. David tried to cover up his sins and as he said himself in the Psalms, as long as he avoided confessing his sins to God, doing everything he could to cover them up instead of facing the truth about his wrong actions, he was wasting away in his own body: “When I refused to confess my sin, my body wasted away, and I groaned all day long. Day and night Your hand of discipline was heavy on me. My strength evaporated like water in the summer heat. (Interlude) Finally, I confessed all my sins to You and stopped trying to hide my guilt. I said to myself, “I will confess my rebellion to the LORD.” And You forgave me! All my guilt is gone. (Interlude)” (Psalms‬ ‭32:3-5‬ ‭NLT‬‬). He knew better; he made wrong choices – he chose to stay home instead of leading his men in the battlefield and fighting with them, temptation put him to the test and he chose to do wrong with Bathsheba.

    It is certainly interesting to study the original language used but instead of the Greek words used, why not go back to the ultimate source and dig into the Hebrew original? I would be quite curious about the Hebrew one. God bless y'all!

  17. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    PassionateForChrist darling, you know I love you, but I don't agree. I'm not being unfair here.

    It is impossible to have sexual foreplay with inanimate objects (like pictures and movies), or even with an actual person without their express interaction with you.

    Sexual covetousness is wrong, but arousal and fantasy in and of themselves are not wrong. Lust applies to desiring to possess or do anything that would be sinful to do.

    If you're a man (I know you're not, PFC), and you derive pleasure from the form of a woman’s body, or even have a sexual fantasy of what it would be like to be with her, you have not lusted after her. If however, after having the fantasy about her you begin to fantasize about how you can actually take her, how you can lure her into having sex with you outside of marriage, THEN you have lusted after her. It really is that simple.

    So in this context, an “impure thought” would be thinking about how you can get a woman into bed with you without first being married to her (that covers single women, prostitutes, and women married to other men).

  18. Old Lover says:

    The exegesis of II Samuel 12 points out the sin of David in taking Bathsheba as his wife; the consummate action of impregnating her by committing adultery with her after lusting after her. How is this exacted? Samuel presents the little ewe parable to David to prick his conscience to bring him to the awareness of his sin of taking Uriah's life to cover-up that sin. Would David have killed Uriah if Bathsheba had not been pregnant? We will never know. We do know that because David impregnated her he accepted his responsibility for doing so my marrying her. So where did he sin? Killing Uriah is clearly a sin? Why did he kill Uriah? To cover up the fact that Bathsheba was pregnant by David after he tried his best to get Uriah to sleep with Bathsheba. David killed Uriah to cover up his act of impregnating Bathsheba. In doing so he committed the sin of murder to cover up the sin of adultery that began with lusting after Bathsheba. Jesus pointed out the chain of evidentiary sin by explaining the impact of lust. Lust is not a sin, but acting on it is a sin.

  19. LoveHer says:

    Your attack on me and others here who are simply conveying what we believe to be truth, speaks volumes about your position. You have absolutely no idea who I am, yet you call me a prude because I merely think it's important to convey the truth? I tried to convey it in a loving and compassionate manner, but apparently the truth hit a nerve. It's all too common for people to unfairly attack the messenger if they don't like the message. I won't fall into that trap. I understand your points and I disagree with them. Yet, I will hold you up in prayer, encourage your thoughtful writing, and call you my brother in Christ. I will also take the steps needed to ensure that others on this board who disagree with your opinions know that I stand with them. I want this to be a safe environment for all views to be shared and discussed, but personal attacks upon me, (though I completely forgive you), will not censor the truth.

  20. Seeking says:

    I love examining subjects from a new perspective and I can tell you did your research. I'm curious how you would apply the command to "take every thought captive" for Christ? Also, by the logic you presented, purposely viewing sexually arrousing material is ok, as long as it doesn't cause you to covet another man'a wife. Would you not agree that porn is very toxic to a marriage?

  21. lenos says:

    @HornyHubby I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I'm saying a little bit *more*. 🙂

    My point is only that I *do* believe you can covet something that doesn't belong to you, even if it doesn't belong to someone else. I agree that the Old Testament focus of coveting/lust was, for cultural reasons, centered around desiring other people's "property" (since women were treated as such :(). But I still think the main point of coveting is that you have a disordered desire for something that *isn't yours*, whether or not it's someone else's.

    It's besides the point, though. When you consider that discontent and idolatry are also sins, you can get into just as much trouble with disordered desires for unmarried women as married.

    All that said, as you know I don't believe that enjoying the sight of and being aroused by a woman, married or otherwise, has to be lust/coveting, discontent, or idolatry. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. And I include erotic stories and pictures in that. So we're somewhat just arguing semantics. I also agree with you about the polygamy point, though I wouldn't let David off the hook for his adultery.

  22. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    By the way, LoveHer, I am a WOMAN in case you clearly haven't noticed, so that would make me a SISTER, not a brother. You're the one who doesn't like the message we convey, and yes your attitude is prudish, and you are wrong. We will probably never agree, not that that's a salvation issue, because salvation is based on what Jesus Christ did. I was not attacking, you were. You were attacking our freedom and wanted to drag us down to your level, because you don't have the same freedom as we do, and then you falsely accused me of attacking you, and I never was! Your misconception is what a lot of people misconceive as lust, but it is not so. And who are you to talk about "my position" whatever that means. That speaks volumes to me! And now you're further attacking me with your self-righteousness! I'm a sinner saved by grace. I'm done with this conversation, God love you.

  23. LoveHer says:

    Harper,
    It makes me sad that you have lost so much credibility through your angry reactions toward me and others all because we disagree with you. Nobody has attacked you. Some of us have simply disagreed with you about our respective interpretations of lust and/or coveting, that's all. I pray that God continues to pour out His blessings upon you and your family. That He continues to use you as the wonderful woman that He has made you to be. (I'm sorry for my earlier oversight about your gender). That God continues to anoint your marriage, your writing and every other aspect of your life according to His will.

  24. Harper Shelby Thornton says:

    I didn't lose any credibility, and you have mischaracterized my passion for anger – it may seem like I'm angry. But I'm not, I'm just passionate about these things. I didn't lose anything, and how can you judge me like that? Good to know you care though unless, you're pretending to be nice because I feel that MAYBE you're appearing to show you care for me, while trying to subtly insult me… That said, if you feel I'm throwing my freedom in your face, sorry. Bless

  25. InVader says:

    Interesting article.
    I have some problems with it though and they are as follows:
    If you say that it was not the problem that David slept with Bathsheba you are implying that it was ok.
    I once visited relatives during summer. Their neighbor was a couple where the wife had very ample cleavage. She would go out during the day, while the husband was at work, and suntan in extremely short and tight string bikini.
    Of course the sight was quite appealing to me as a man, but I knew that it was wrong to gape at her.
    Now if I had gone over, ripped off her string bikini and had sex with her, you are implying that that would not be a problem.
    Yet the fact is clear that I would be committing gross Adultery, in the same way that David CLEARLY committed Adultery, which is obviously a sin and wrong.
    My next Problem is this: You seem to imply that looking at a woman and enjoying her, as David did, is not wrong unless one is thinking of how to sexually possess her.
    Then you say that David looking at Bathsheba was not a problem. But we all know that David went on having sex with her.
    From this I conclude that David DID look at Bathsheba with the thought of possessing her sexually.
    Yet Nathan does not mention this. Just because Nathan does not mention it, does that automatically mean that Nathan would not have condemned these things?
    Did Jesus mention the sin of the Adulteress caught in the act? No! Does this mean that it was ok? NO!

    The reason why Nathan spoke as he spoke is because he wanted to focus on a specific theme, the theme of where Davids initial sin of lust and adultery had led: The slaughter of an innocent man!
    David looking at Bathsheba bathing naked and not turning away immediately WAS A SIN
    David taking her and having sex with her WAS A SIN
    David had no business gazing at a naked woman who was not his, for we see where it has led….

  26. JDTM77 says:

    Another in a long line of biblical questions in which there are enormous amounts of grace needed in both understanding and application.

    If viewing sexual acts of even reading erotica on here pulls you in an unhealthy state of desire which negatively impact your relationship, then it's probably best to avoid it. If one is truly lusting, it typically comes at the expense of someone else and includes many other sinful engagements.

    I've gotten so turned on by many of the stories on here that I've had many orgasms in the middle of reading them, and very rarely do my thoughts run to my wife. Is that lust?

    Here's a question then –

    If two female friends decided to meet up for an evening at home to read and masturbate to stories on MH, watching each other for arousal purposes, but never touching or fantasizing about the other…Would that be acceptable?

    Would me fantasizing or masturbating to that scenario be lustful?

    This is just an opinion, but I think the spirit of and philosophical nature of the Bible often gets lost the more we try to turn everything into an equation in which action + thought= sin. Not everything is so black and white.

  27. CrazyHappyLoved says:

    Wow! This was deep!

    I'd like to make a couple of points:
    1) The OP was delving into the meaning of one word only and not defining the entirety of sexual sin nor even of the sin in just this episode of David's life.
    2) Nathan didn't come to confront David at any earlier stage in the escapade, true enough. But there *were* consequences of sin being experienced. An illegitimate pregnancy and physical illness (apparently stress related, per Psalms) were some. Nathan only came with the message of condemnation when it looked like David had *gotten away* with it. It reminded him that he couldn't hide his sin from God.
    3) If we can refrain from using the word "you" in any comment disagreeing with the opinions of another, we will go a long way in showing respect and love while making our very valid points. Love covers over a multitude of sins.

  28. sarah k says:

    David sinned the moment he decided he wanted to take Bathsheba, not when he desired to have sex with her, but when he chose to bring that into reality.

    By the way, it was not adultery [on her part], it was rape. King David's power over her meant that she could not freely give consent.

  29. likaself says:

    jasonstaple has on his website a good discussion of matthew-5:27-28.
    Like HornyHubby, he too came to the conclusion that the word should be 'covert'. What we generally think 'lust' means is not what Jesus spoke about. Youtuber Shelby Artist made a comment that the Song of Solomon was full of 'lust'.
    I'm going to add this link with jasonstaple where I have used it on Quora,
    Well done.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply