Defining "lusting after" in Matt 5

[nwink]

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. (Mt. 5:27-30)

I used to work at a big company with some immoral co-workers, one of whom knew the Bible fairly well (a liberal, "nominal" Jehovah's Witness, believe it or not)...but he would check out some of the women in our big office. When he talked with me about that one time, I mentioned I didn't do that because Jesus talked about not lusting after a woman in my heart....and I was then called a legalist for my interpretation. His argument was that he wasn't "lusting" because he didn't actually want to have sexual relations with those women, but he just wanted to check them out ("appreciate their beauty").

His remark totally caught me off guard as I thought everyone knew what "lust" means (impure thoughts), but it also confused me in how to correctly respond with a correct definition of "lusting after." What would be the best way to respond to show what Jesus meant by looking at a woman "to lust after her"? (in other words, that "lusting after" would be a word regarding purpose, not only just result)

 

[Joseph Scibbe]

Can someone with a lexicon check this one? I am pretty sure that what you described is a good definition but my lexicon is at home.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Someone is apparently a graduate of the William Jefferson Clinton School of Linguistic Redefinition and Convolution. I hear its a great school, depending on your definition of "great"

 

[Berean]

the William Jefferson Clinton School of Liguistic Redefinition and Convolution

Good one, Bill.

 

[Rufus]

You should have asked him if his checking out led to any deeper things, it probably did.

 

[Edward]

At least Jimmy Carter knew the answer to that one.

 

[MW]

What would be the best way to respond to show what Jesus meant by looking at a woman "to lust after her"? (in other words, that "lusting after" would be a word regarding purpose, not only just result)

The context is adultery. Adultery supposes marriage. The sequel relative to divorce also speaks of the sanctity of marriage. Marriage is what sets apart human sexuality from brutes. It creates a domain of propriety in which sexual activity is to be confined. One must "have" in order to "hold." To "hold" without "having" is an impropriety because it indulges in the pleasure of the opposite sex without first committing oneself to love, honour, and cherish the person. It treats that person like an object upon which to satisfy one's own desires and thereby degrades her personhood. Looking but not touching is still a "holding" of the mind and a degrading of the person in one's own mind.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(1Jn 2:16) For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

(1Jn 2:17) And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Parallel the above passage with this one.

(Gen 3:6) And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Notice the order is the same. Lust of the flesh, Lust of the eyes, and the Pride of Life.

These are the same temptations that our Lord met with when he was tempted of Satan in Matthew 4 also. They are the temptations common to all men. I would say that this man was playing with eye candy.

 

[FenderPriest]

I believe the phrase is "justifying sin".

 

[J. Dean]

The sin does not fall in saying "A woman is beautiful." The sin falls in saying "I want that woman." It's the same with coveting; admiring somebody else's new car in and of itself is not a sin. Looking at that car and saying "I want that car (belonging to my neighbor), and it's not fair that he has it and I don't" is a sin.

 

[nwink]

J. Dean, right...good point.

Similar to what's been said on this thread, it just shows how bad/degrading lust is, that this sin degrades a woman's personhood and makes her an object (in objectifying her, it treats her as if you can just take the aspects you want, even though they're not yours in the first place, and leave her other aspects and the need to love her, care for her, etc). The lusting person thinks he isn't doing anything wrong by satisfying his own desires in thinking on and enjoying someone else's wife in a way that is only that woman's husband's right -- the lusting person thinks he's ok just b/c he doesn't physically commit adultery with her.

It really shows the wickedness of hearts when they attempt to redefine God's standards to accommodate their sinful practices. Regarding the guy I mentioned in the beginning of this thread, his redefining of "lust" would be essentially denying what Jesus is teaching. One thing Jesus is showing in this passage is that the law deals with heart-issues, not just external actions (ie, the Pharisaic interpretations). With the commandment about murder, it's not enough to just not do the external action ("result") but you must not also have the heart attitude of hate ("purpose"). With that line of thinking, one can think hatefully all day of a person and be breaking the commandment all day. So similarly with the commandment about adultery (correct me if I'm wrong), it's not enough to just not do the external action ("result") but you must not also have the heart attitude of lust/impure-thoughts ("purpose"). Therefore, even if the sinner does not truly want to commit physical adultery ("result"), if he has impure thoughts about the person ("purpose), this is specifically what is breaking the commandment.

I'm just trying to get a solid understanding of how to define "lust" correctly per this passage, in contrast to the false definition the guy gave me (as I mentioned in the OP). Am I understanding correctly?

 

[FCC]

I hear this kind of wrong thinking all the time also. We redefine the Biblical terms in order to fulfill our own sinful desires or lusts. Lusting is defined as the wrongful longing after an object that is not rightfully yours. You have no right to possess that object, yet you long after it or desire it just the same. The person you were speaking too is using a faulty definition in order to excuse himself from the sin specifically mentioned in this passage in Matthew.

I have a lawer friend, who prides himself on his legal knoweldge and ability. We were discussing the application of God's Law in our modern society and he exclaimed, "I will find a loop hole, there is always a loophole." I informed him that God's law has no loop holes, it is complete and deals with not only our outward actions but the desires of the heart. He was a little downcast at this, but honestly admitted his own folly in attempting to find a "loophole" in God's perfect law.

Keep up the good fight of faith Nathan!

 

[torstar]

"You can't stop a bird from flying over your head, but you CAN stop it from building a nest in your hair". - Martin Luther

 

[Semper Fidelis]

His remark totally caught me off guard as I thought everyone knew what "lust" means (impure thoughts), but it also confused me in how to correctly respond with a correct definition of "lusting after." What would be the best way to respond to show what Jesus meant by looking at a woman "to lust after her"? (in other words, that "lusting after" would be a word regarding purpose, not only just result)

By some people's definition, anything that makes the Law hard is "legalism". Of course, I wouldn't expect your nominal JW friend to understand that all men stand condemned before the Law because it is holy, perfect, and good.

One can scarcely imagine why Christ had to die on a Cross for our violation of the Law if such loopholes abounded to attain unto the righteousness that the Law demands.

Your coworker regularly violated the 7th Commandment. Full stop.

Best advice: don't allow foolish talk to take you "off guard". There's no end to the cavils that people can come up with and it's sometimes best not to answer a fool according to his folly.

 

[moral necessity]

Lusting and coveting are different.

Lust is a strong desire, the emphasis on strong. It refers to a violent tempest or whirlwind-like affections. The affections or attractions towards a woman's looks are not the problem. It's the violent torrent and immoderation of them that is described as lust. You can even have a desire for a good thing, and it become immoderate and like a whirlwind, and therefore be improper.

Men often beat themselves up for the initial "wow" inside of them at the sight of an attractive woman. I think we should praise God for their beauty, and for him making us attracted to them. But, when I dwell on those attractions, and allow them to fester, and my affections become out of control and a tempest, then I have crossed over into lust.

With these sorts of interactions, there are two cautions: that of coveting (longing for what is not yours), and lusting (violent affections towards something). Attraction towards what is meant by God to be attractive is proper and praiseworthy. For some, this may be hard to separate. For others, a clean conscience is not as diffcult.

That's how I tend to see it.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

From the WLC:

Q. 137. Which is the seventh commandment?
A. The seventh commandment is, Thou shalt not commit adultery.766

Q. 138. What are the duties required in the seventh commandment?
A. The duties required in the seventh commandment are, chastity in body, mind, affections,767 words,768 and behavior;769 and the preservation of it in ourselves and others;770 watchfulness over the eyes and all the senses;771 temperance,772 keeping of chaste company,773 modesty in apparel;774 marriage by those that have not the gift of continency,775 conjugal love,776 and cohabitation;777 diligent labor in our callings;778 shunning all occasions of uncleanness, and resisting temptations thereunto.779

Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,780 are, adultery, fornication,781 rape, incest,782 sodomy, and all unnatural lusts;783 all unclean imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections;784 all corrupt or filthy communications, or listening thereunto;785 wanton looks,786 impudent or light behaviour, immodest apparel;787 prohibiting of lawful,788 and dispensing with unlawful marriages;789 allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews, and resorting to them;790 entangling vows of single life,791 undue delay of marriage,792 having more wives or husbands than one at the same time;793 unjust divorce,794 or desertion;795 idleness, gluttony, drunkenness,796 unchaste company;797 lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays;798 and all other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.799

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

(Job 31:1) I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?

It is one thing to notice a woman as a person or to see her as a sister. It is another to look at her particular body parts and take notice as they are enticing and alluring toward affection. I imagine that is why Job wanted to be upright concerning this matter. I appreciate a beautiful hot rod. But it doesn't effect my affections like that of a woman. I can't see into the heart of another. I do know my heart. I imagine it isn't much different than most men. Apples and oranges, I mean women and cars. Not the same thing. And I am sure someone will debate that. Yes, both can become idols. But the affections are different. lol. At least I would hope so.

 

[FCC]

Lusting after

Since I have had to deal with this topic multiple times in my own experience, I went home did some study on the topic. Here some of my scattered thoughts. I do think I have a better handle on the topic now and will be able to deal with those who raise the argument again. I hope it helps someone.

Matthew 5:27-30
27 Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. 29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

27 ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαιοις ου μοιχευσεις 28 εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο βλεπων γυναικα προς το επιθυμησαι αυτης ηδη εμοιχευσεν αυτην εν τη καρδια αυτου 29 ει δε ο οφθαλμος σου ο δεξιος σκανδαλιζει σε εξελε αυτον και βαλε απο σου συμφερει γαρ σοι ινα αποληται εν των μελων σου και μη ολον το σωμα σου βληθη εις γεενναν

This passage is one that is frequently refuted in our day. This is primarily by unbelievers who are attempting to avoid the spiritual, inward working of the Law of God. Our Lord Jesus taught this application of the law in this specific passage. Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” (Matt. 5:17-20) The scribes and Pharisees were famous for their external obedience to God's law but inwardly they were full of dead men's bones.

The passage before us deals primarily with the intent of the heart. Jesus clearly states that a man, who looks on a woman and lusts after her in his heart has committed adultery with her already. The way that many seek to escape the thrust of this passage is to claim that they aren't lusting. They may say, “Oh, I am only admiring her beauty.” Or I have also heard it said, “It isn't wrong to look, just to touch.” The second reply is the easiest to counter utilizing this passage in Matthew 5, it is the first that is harder.

It is a common form of escapism for sinful man to counter the Word of God with some form of sophism. Thus, we must counter the sophism used by so many to lessen the force of Christ's teaching here. Sophism is “A specious but fallacious argument; a subtilty in reasoning; an argument that is not supported by sound reasoning, or in which the inference is not justly deduced from the premises.” (Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language) So, a sinful man, beholds a woman and in his heart he begins to desire her. What is the purpose of that desire? It is to have that which is not rightfully his. A woman, who belongs to another man, becomes an unlawful object of sinful desire.

The Greek word used in this passage to refer to the unlawful lust is επιθυμησαι. Rogers and Rogers, Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament, supplies us with this definition for epithomesai, “to desire, to long for." The back ground of the word provides us with some insight into it's meaning. The root of the word is epithumeo, which is defined as “to long for, to covet, to lust after." It is used in James 4:2; Romans 7:7; Acts 20:33; and Luke 22: 15.

“Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not” James 4:2

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. “ Romans 7:7

“I have coveted no man's silver, or gold, or apparel.” Acts 20:33

“ And he said unto them, With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: “ Luke 22:15

In these verses we see the same Greek word translated as “lust,” “covet,” and “desire.” It is clear that this word is pointing to an inward desire for something. A strong desire to have something, whatever that might be. It can be used in both a good way and in a bad sense as well. We see Christ “desiring” to eat the passover with his disciples, which was a good thing. We also see James write that lust leads to killing and empty unfulfilled desire leads to sin. It is an emotion to be strongly guarded against!

In order to counter the arguments against this verse, we must strike at the heart of the argument. This is usually found in the comments that surround the matter at hand. Listen carefully to how the person is discussing the object of their desire. Is it truly an appreciation of beauty or is it a desire to possess the other person in a sexual manner? These comments, I have found, usually make the context painfully clear. We need to utilize the Scriptures in order to bring the Law of God to bear on lost sinners and then, when they feel the force of their sin, bring in the Gospel! This is the Christian's duty and it is the primary purpose for utilizing Scripture in this manner.

Jesus' follow up to these verses is especially strong. “And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be case into hell. . .” (v. 29) He continues to describe the same action with the hand. Both of these work together to cause us to sin. As in the garden of Eden, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat."

Eve's sin began when she “saw the tree.” She looked upon it, much the same way the sinful man looks upon a woman. She saw that the tree was pleasant! Much the same argument that our sophists will use with this passage. The look wasn't enough though, Eve “took of the fruit thereof, and did eat. . .” What we desire is eventually what we take action to obtain! The Scriptures are full of warnings against lust, against even beholding sin, why would we play with it so lightly? Because our world has taught us that “admiring beauty” is acceptable. It has taught us that “looking and not touching” is alright. The fallen world does not fear to tread where God has commanded us not to go! Oh how wise they are! God's Word teaches us that looking and lusting wrongfully is in and of itself sinful.

How do we combat this? James provides us with an excellent method. “Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy? But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you. Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” James 4:5-8

The arguments used against these verses in Matthew chapter 5 are the “double mindedness” that James warns us against. Notice also that we are commanded to 'cleanse our hands” and to “purify our hearts.” Our lust leads us to sin! It is no light thing to look upon a woman to lust after her. May we all be like Job, “I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid?” Job 31:1 In fact, I usually use this verse from Job to counter the arguments raised by those who attempt to by pass the implications in Matthew 5.

Sorry to run so long, it is an interesting topic, especially since it arises so often.

 

[Afterthought]

So I guess we would define "lust" as having impure thoughts, desires, or purposes about someone who is not one's spouse?