on Lust and Guilt
Submitted by Jules on 2002-11-19 18:58:18, Tuesday
|
Dear all, These thoughts have been bouncing around in my mind for a while, especially since boylover75 and J both pointed out that Matthew 5:28 is about adultery rather than about sexual desire. What I've been writing, below, might not be quite right, but it's how it seems to me at the moment. What does anyone think? Matthew 5:28 is often used as a 'proof-text' for the idea that there is a type of sexual desire or imagination, called lust, which is sinful. (You know the sort of definition we tend to think of: the raw, earthly, animal, physical sexual desire, distinct from a purer spiritual love.) But that's not really the meaning of this verse. Firstly, Jesus isn't setting out to define things as sinful at all in this verse, or the verses around it. Once you spend time looking at it, in context of the whole of verses 17-48, the meaning of Matthew 5:27-28 is really this: You know the commandment, 'Do not commit adultery,' and you think you can avoid sin by not committing adultery. But I tell you that the cause of adultery is the desire to have another man's wife that we've all felt at one time or another. You can't say you're better than an adulterer just because you've kept the commandment.Jesus isn't saying I'm making the law more strict than it used to be, so that even your thoughts are condemned. Not only do you need to repent if you've committed adultery, you also need to repent if you've ever thought of wanting another man's wife, and you must try not to think it again.At first glance, you might think that's what he means, but reading between the lines what he is saying is Don't you see that none of us are perfect; we've all wanted another man's wife at one time or another, and we can't help it! So don't think you can please God by trying to be righteous outwardly. Even our own thoughts, that we can't control, are the very thing that leads to sin. So don't judge others for their sin, and don't think you're any better. If it relied on righteousness, none of us could enter the kingdom of heaven.So I don't read this verse and think I need to feel guilty for feelings and desires that I can't control anyway. Instead it makes me rely totally on God's grace in accepting me, whether I've acted on them or not. That's the point. Jesus isn't trying to make us feel guilty, he's showing us the way to leave guilt behind, by realising that God has to overlook even our uncontrollable thoughts to accept us, regardless of what we've done, and we can't do anything about it ourselves. Once we realise that it's just as hard for God to forgive any one of us, regardless of what we've done, then we are free from worrying about how good we are and, if we really take it to heart, need never feel unforgivably guilty again. Yes, we can feel temporarily guilty for thoughts and actions we can control, and take measures to improve, but we need never think 'God can never forgive me for these thoughts.' Another point about this verse is that the original Greek doesn't use a special word for 'lust' in the sexual sense that we mean by it. The word simply means a strong desire, or 'covet' in the sense of the 10th commandment. Jesus is using the same idea as 10th commandment, which says You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. (Exodus 20:17)(The Greek translation of the 10th commandment uses the same word as Matthew 5:28.) In this commandment, the thing that is wrong isn't the wanting, it's the fact that she's another man's wife. To use grammatical terms, the problem is with the object, not the verb. And there were other possible reasons for 'coveting' another man's wife, as well as sex. For example, wanting a better 'housewife', or someone more suitable for bearing and looking after your children. Instead of using the English word 'lust', a less misleading translation of Matthew 5:28 would be anyone who looks at a woman to covet herAnd it would be quite right to paraphrase it as anyone who considers another man's wife and wants to have her as his wifeAnd the point of all this is that it isn't about sexual desire. Of course sexual desire may be part of it, but it isn't the sexual desire that makes it wrong, it's the fact that she's already married to someone else, or that you are already married. In fact, if she's someone else's wife, even just wanting her as a companion, or as a mother for your children, without any sexual feeling at all, is just as wrong as wanting her sexually. There's no justification for saying that you have 'pure love' for her, rather than 'lust', so that would be ok to act on - it's wrong to act on either, because of who she is. There's nothing in the Bible that defines 'lust' as a particular kind of sexual desire that is sinful because it is 'earthy' rather than spiritual. The Bible doesn't make this distinction. Nowhere is any kind of sexual desire condemned for itself, no matter how raw or earthy it is. When sexual desire or actions are condemned, it's aways when they are directed at the wrong person or persons, and are harmful to one or more people when acted on. So the Bible condemns adultery because it breaks up marriages. The Bible condemns orgies because they degrade the value of committed relationships, or because they were associated with pagan worship. But nowhere are any of these things condemned because they are about sex, and certainly not because they are about earthy sex rather than spiritual sex. When sexual desire or activity are condemned it's because of who they are directed at, and what harm would result from carrying them out. So none of us should feel guilty specifically for the sexual feelings and desires we have, thinking that God cannot forgive us for them. We shouldn't think that sexual feelings are unforgivable because they are different from 'real love' (however that is defined). Instead we rely totally on God's grace in accepting us anyway, since we can't control those desires, but at the same time acknowledge that those desires would be the root cause of actual sin if it were wrong to act on them. (And in most cases, I think we agree, even those who don't think there are any other reasons, that it would be wrong to act on them because of the risk of harm from other people's reactions.) But we should also acknowledge that even our desire for a non-sexual, romantic relationship of 'real love' is no better, if it were unacceptable to have such a relationship in reality because of the harm that could result from people's reactions. Although society says the harm done by a sexual relationship would be greater, we should all guard against even the lesser harm done by any kind of relationship, if there would be any harm. We should acknowledge that even our purest desires for 'real love' could be the root cause of such harm. None of us should feel superior if we haven't given in to sexual feelings, or if we don't have them. I think that's in accord with the spirit of what Jesus was saying. To put it another way, don't treat sexual desire as a special case. Any desire, sexual or not, is potentially the root cause of sin, if it would be inappropriate to act on it because of who it is aimed at. But the desire itself isn't a sin, and we mustn't feel guilty for it. Actions and deliberate thoughts can be sin, but uncontrollable thoughts can't be. With Christian love, Jules |
Follow ups: