# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Is Matthew 5: 28 misunderstood when it comes to Jesus' teaching about lust?

## Brett85

This is a subject that I've been thinking about recently.  I think a lot of the beliefs that we have as Christians are based more on tradition than on what the Bible actually says about a certain subject.  We tend to believe what our church teaches about a certain subject, or we look to what the so called leaders of "mainstream Christianity" have to say about a certain subject before we form an opinion.  But I'm someone who believes that we should look to the Bible alone for guidance on every theological belief.  I believe that we should interpret the Bible literally, which includes going back and looking at the context behind a certain passage in the Bible.  With that in mind, I'd like to bring up the subject of Matthew 5: 28 and what the church has traditionally taught about lust.

In Matthew 5: 28 Jesus says "but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart."  The church has traditionally interpreted that verse to basically mean, "anytime you're physically attracted to a member of the opposite sex, you've committed a sin."  So if you're a 16 year old male and you walk past a woman and think to yourself, "she has nice breasts," then according to traditional church teachings, you've just committed a sin.  But when you look at the context of what Jesus was actually saying in Matthew 5: 28, that's not at all what Jesus was talking about when he made that statement.  For one thing, I think we have to understand that Jesus lived in a culture and a time in which virtually everyone was married.  (At least everyone who had gone through puberty and had sexual desires)  People married very young back then, and virtually everyone married.  It wasn't a situation where Jesus was talking to a large group of single people and telling them that if they ever have sexual thoughts about a member of the opposite sex, that they've committed adultery.  After all, how can a single person who looks lustfully at another single person commit adultery?  The term "adultery" refers to a married person who cheats on their spouse, and that obviously wouldn't be happening in regards to lust between two single people.  We live in a society today in which a large number of people are single well past the time that they begin to have sexual desires.  What Jesus was saying in Matthew 5: 28 has absolutely nothing to do with a single person who looks lustfully at another single person, in my opinion, when you actually look at the context of the verse.  I suppose you could argue that it's still a sin for a single person to look at a married person lustfully, and perhaps it is, but I think that even the term "lust" was defined differently by Jesus than we define it today.

For instance, the context of what was going on at the time was that you had a lot of men who were simply choosing to leave their wives for the sole purpose of marrying and having sexual relations with another woman.  This is something Jesus referenced in other passages when he said, "if you get divorced and get remarried, that's no different from committing adultery."  He was speaking specifically of men who were leaving their wives and marrying other women for the sole reason of having sexual relations with other women.  So Jesus basically said, "if you divorce your wife so that you can get married to and sleep with another woman, that's no different from sleeping with another woman while you're still married to your wife."  In the same way, in Matthew 5: 28 Jesus was essentially saying, "I already told you that if you leave your wife for the purpose of having sex with another woman, you've committed adultery.  But now I'm also telling you that if you even think about doing that, you've already committed adultery against your wife in your heart."  So it doesn't seem to me like Jesus was even saying that it's a sin for a married man to just have impure thoughts about another woman, but that it's a sin for a married man to obsess about another woman to the point that he even contemplates leaving his wife in order to have sexual relations with that woman.  (And vice versa, in today's society)  

So, my view is that what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5: 28 had absolutely nothing to do with a single person looking lustfully at another single person, and even lust that involves a married person was defined quite a bit differently back in that period of time than it is now.  Thoughts?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I believe that we should interpret the Bible literally


Every last bit?  Not even Jesus or Paul did (see circumcision, for example).  U a Pharisee, bro?

----------


## fr33

> Thoughts?


I think you're nuts to follow a book in which you are unable to know the names of the people who wrote it and the people who edited it. 

You also probably don't know the real names of the people in the book.

John wasn't called John for thousands of years. The same goes for Jesus.

----------


## otherone

> So, my view is that what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5: 28 had absolutely nothing to do with a single person looking lustfully at another single person, and even lust that involves a married person was defined quite a bit differently back in that period of time than it is now. Thoughts?


I agree, the bible should be read contextually, not literally.

----------


## westkyle

I am not a christian, but my view is this; Jesus meant exactly what he said.  All negative and positive actions start in the mind where our habits are created.  As a muslim, christian, hindu, etc we should strive to be in total command of our minds, so our negativity(satan, if you will) will not have a chance to make it's way into our physical world.  This does not mean we should not have sex with our wives, but we must be in charge of our desires.  Do you think Jesus would give us something to strive for that is easily attainable?  Lust is a cunning enemy, but I was taught to always remember that I am not a body.  I AM A SOUL!  No worries, but keep fighting!

----------


## Brett85

> Every last bit?  Not even Jesus or Paul did (see circumcision, for example).  U a Pharisee, bro?


I guess it depends on your definition of "literally."  I believe that we're supposed to interpret the Bible literally unless there's some kind of context within a particular passage which indicates otherwise.  There are some verses which are meant to be interpreted more symbolically and metaphorically, but I don't think that we should just interpret a verse symbolically because we don't like the literal meaning of a verse, but because the context requires us to interpret it more symbolically.

----------


## Brett85

> I agree, the bible should be read contextually, not literally.


Again, I guess it goes back to how you define "literally."  I think the literal interpretation of the verse sometimes is the contextual interpretation.  In order to discover the literal interpretation of a verse, sometimes you have to go back and look at the verse in its original Hebrew/Greek form, look at the context behind a certain verse and what was going on at the time, etc.

----------


## otherone

> Again, I guess it goes back to how you define "literally."



 I guess it goes back to how you define "irony".

----------


## otherone

> I am not a christian, but my view is this; Jesus meant exactly what he said.  All negative and positive actions start in the mind where our habits are created.


_The soul becomes dyed with the color of its thoughts.
Marcus Aurelius
_

----------


## pcosmar

> Again, I guess it goes back to how you define ,,,,


What is is.

this sounds like the same $#@! they pulled on Jesus.. Lawyers (Scribes/Pharisees) trying to find loopholes to justify their own issues. 

I think that he was just showing that all sin. that even the thought,, even without action was still sin.
NO Loophole.

----------


## Brett85

> What is is.
> 
> this sounds like the same $#@! they pulled on Jesus.. Lawyers (Scribes/Pharisees) trying to find loopholes to justify their own issues. 
> 
> I think that he was just showing that all sin. that even the thought,, even without action was still sin.
> NO Loophole.


If looking at a member of the opposite sex lustfully is a sin, even for single people, is it any more of a sin than using the word "$#@!?"

----------


## pcosmar

> If looking at a member of the opposite sex lustfully is a sin, even for single people, is it any more of a sin than using the word "$#@!?"


Is using a word a sin?

is $#@!ting a sin? 
is $#@! sin?

what is your point.? Got the hots for someone?

----------


## Brett85

> Is using a word a sin?


Yes, it certainly can be.

Ephesians 4: 29

"Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them."

----------


## westkyle

> If looking at a member of the opposite sex lustfully is a sin, even for single people, is it any more of a sin than using the word "$#@!?"


I'm confused.  You said ". But I'm someone who believes that we should look to the Bible alone for guidance on every theological belief. I believe that we should interpret the Bible literally, which includes going back and looking at the context behind a certain passage in the Bible."  So, what is the problem?  If you do not wish to be a Christian or hold yourself up to what a Christian would be, be who you want to be.  It's easy to call yourself a Christian and difficult to actually be one.  Make a choice.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, it certainly can be.
> 
> Ephesians 4: 29
> 
> "Don't use foul or abusive language. Let everything you say be good and helpful, so that your words will be an encouragement to those who hear them."


Paul doesn't say that is a sin, though.  (though it kinda is, in the sense of "missing the mark" WRT Jesus' twofold commandment on love) It's just generally sage advice.  Especially in context-it's an epistle to the Church in Ephesia, which was still in need of Paul's spiritual guidance at the time.

----------


## Brett85

> Paul doesn't say that is a sin, though.  (though it kinda is, in the sense of "missing the mark" WRT Jesus' twofold commandment on love) It's just generally sage advice.  Especially in context-it's an epistle to the Church in Ephesia, which was still in need of Paul's spiritual guidance at the time.


So when Paul says "don't get drunk on wine," that's simply "sage advice" as well?  That doesn't mean that it's a sin to get drunk?

----------


## Brett85

> I'm confused.  You said ". But I'm someone who believes that we should look to the Bible alone for guidance on every theological belief. I believe that we should interpret the Bible literally, which includes going back and looking at the context behind a certain passage in the Bible."  So, what is the problem?  If you do not wish to be a Christian or hold yourself up to what a Christian would be, be who you want to be.  It's easy to call yourself a Christian and difficult to actually be one.  Make a choice.


I'm a Christian.  Neither you or anyone else has provided any kind of evidence at all that Jesus was either 1) talking about single people in Matthew 5: 28, or 2) defining the word "lust" in the same way that it's defined today.

----------


## Brett85

I expected more out of this conversation than "you're just trying to justify your own immoral behavior."  If you actually have some evidence that my interpretation of Matthew 5: 28 is incorrect, then provide that evidence.  Otherwise, don't post comments and proceed to dumb down the debate.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So when Paul says "don't get drunk on wine," that's simply "sage advice" as well?  That doesn't mean that it's a sin to get drunk?


Nope.  Again, context, context, context.  The full quote is 


> Do not get drunk on wine, *which leads to debauchery*. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.


  Paul is condemning debauchery, not getting drunk.

----------


## pcosmar

> So when Paul says "don't get drunk on wine," that's simply "sage advice" as well?  That doesn't mean that it's a sin to get drunk?


It is unwise to get drunk.. but having a drink is no sin. Drunk makes you stupid,, he could have said "Don't be stupid".
It is good advice.

----------


## otherone

> It's easy to call yourself a Christian and difficult to actually be one.  Make a choice.


There are two types of Christians.
One type thinks love is a noun; the other type, a verb.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It is unwise to get drunk.. but having a drink is no sin. Drunk makes you stupid,, he could have said "Don't be stupid".
> It is good advice.


This^^  Paul was generally a good priest (or "proto-priest" if you prefer).

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> There are two types of Christians.
> One type thinks love is a noun; the other type, a verb.


heh.   It's funny because it's sad but true. :/  (btw, the word for "love", noun and "to love", intransitive verb are different words in Greek.  And the noun forms mean different things entirely-agape, eros, philia, etc...so it's technically true that love is a noun and a verb.../ramble)

----------


## Occam's Banana

> There are two types of Christians.
> One type thinks love is a noun; the other type, a verb.

----------


## Brett85

> It is unwise to get drunk.. but having a drink is no sin. Drunk makes you stupid,, he could have said "Don't be stupid".
> It is good advice.


My view is that drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but it's a sin to get drunk.  That's how I interpret Paul's remarks.

----------


## pcosmar

> Nope.  Again, context, context, context.


Yup..
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5




> I expected more out of this conversation than "*you're just trying to justify your own immoral behavior*."  If you actually have some evidence that my interpretation of Matthew 5: 28 is incorrect, then provide that evidence.  Otherwise, don't post comments and proceed to dumb down the debate.


Did I hit a nerve? sorry. 
You started the thread,, it was on your mind. why the interest, and why the mental effort to get around it?

But in context,, read the whole thing.



> 19 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.
> 
> 20 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.
> 
> 21 Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
> 
> 22 *But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment*: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.





> As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> My view is that drinking alcohol isn't a sin, but it's a sin to get drunk.  That's how I interpret Paul's remarks.


There is a direct correlation between getting drunk and debauchery?    Plenty of people on this forum alone are living proof to the contrary.

----------


## Brett85

> Did I hit a nerve? sorry. 
> You started the thread,, it was on your mind. why the interest, and why the mental effort to get around it?
> 
> But in context,, read the whole thing.


I don't claim to be righteous.  I'm certainly a sinner like everyone else.  I was just making the case that I don't believe that Matthew 5: 28 applies to single people.  If a 14 year old boy is physically attracted to a girl his age and has sexual thoughts about her, I don't think that he needs to beat himself up and come to the conclusion that he's a terrible person for having those thoughts.  It's normal to have those kinds of thoughts.  That's how God made us, with a sex drive.  I can still remember feeling guilty for having those thoughts when I was younger, and now that I think about it I don't think I should've felt guilty for having those thoughts, because there's nothing inherently sinful about it.  Jesus was basically just saying "don't covet your neighbor's wife.  If you do that, you've committed adultery against your wife."  It's a sin to obsess over and covet your neighbor's wife.  It's not a sin just to be physically attracted to someone of the opposite sex.

----------


## Brett85

> There is a direct correlation between getting drunk and debauchery?    Plenty of people on this forum alone are living proof to the contrary.


Paul includes drunkards on the list of people who won't inherit God's kingdom.

1 Corinthians 6: 9-10

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God

----------


## otherone

> I don't claim to be righteous.  I'm certainly a sinner like everyone else.  I was just making the case that I don't believe that Matthew 5: 28 applies to single people.


C'mon dude.
The point of Matthew 5:28 is that one is a sinner despite observance of the law.

----------


## Brett85

> C'mon dude.
> The point of Matthew 5:28 is that one is a sinner despite observance of the law.


Explain to me how it's possible for a single person to commit adultery by looking lustfully at another single person.  Do you know what the term "adultery" actually means?

----------


## otherone

> Explain to me how it's possible for a single person to commit adultery by looking lustfully at another single person.  Do you know what the term "adultery" actually means?


Ask Jesus how it's possible for a married person to commit adultery by looking lustfully at another person.

----------


## Brett85

> Ask Jesus.


So you don't care to look at the context of a certain verse?  You just think that we're supposed to look at the English words written on the page, assume that it's been translated correctly, and assume that there's no context which may indicate a different meaning?

----------


## otherone

> So you don't care to look at the context of a certain verse?  You just think that we're supposed to look at the English words written on the page, assume that it's been translated correctly, and assume that there's no context which may indicate a different meaning?


Can a person sin with their thoughts?  Is premarital sex a sin?
If mental adultery is sinful, why isn't mental fornication?

----------


## Brett85

> Can a person sin with their thoughts?  Is premarital sex a sin?
> If mental adultery is sinful, why isn't mental fornication?


I think the Bible teaches that premarital sex is a sin.  The Bible uses the word fornication to describe premarital sex.  I think the Bible teaches that a person can sin with their thoughts, but sinning with your thoughts involves coveting something that isn't yours, not just walking past a woman and thinking to yourself "she has a really nice body."  And I'm just arguing that Jesus didn't teach that mental fornication is a sin in Matthew 5: 28.  I'm not arguing that it's a good idea, just that Jesus said absolutely nothing about it.

----------

