| Women and Sexual Sins
|
| This is a study of what Jesus said in Matthew 5:27-28 (from his so-called "Sermon on the Mount"). This article will attempt to answer the following questions:
What does "lust" mean? Is "lust" a temptation or a sin? Is temptation a sin? Did Jesus teach something new, or did he teach what was from the beginning? Did Jesus "add to" or "take away" from God's Law? What is adultery? Is it a sin to lust after an unmarried woman? Is it a sin to have sex with an unmarried woman? Do all sins require a blood sacrifice? Are spiritual truths represented by physical truths? What are all the sexual sins listed in scripture? |
| Is it a Sin to Lust after an Unmarried Woman?
To “lust” does not mean to think about having sex with a woman. All lust means is to “desire.” The object of your lust may be sex, but the term “lust” itself has nothing to do with sex. God command us to lust after Him and His Word, does that mean we think about sex? No. For example, is it possible to “desire” to be married to a certain woman, yet not lust after her body? Yes, it is. Is it wrong to desire an unmarried woman in this case? No, it is not. Now, let me ask you this. If the woman you “desire” to marry, even though you are not thinking about having sex with her, if she is married to another man, is it wrong to “desire” her? Yes it is. Why? Because she is another man's wife, and you have committed adultery already in your heart. But, keep in mind, thinking about having “sex” with her had nothing at all to do with committing adultery in your heart. Just the fact that one “desires” someone else's wife, even without sexual intent, is committing adultery in one's heart, because she belongs to another man! And this proves that the term “lust” does not mean “to think about having sex,” even when applied to women, even when applied to adultery. Even though the object of lust may be sex, sex is not inherent in lust. In Matthew 5:28, the term “lust” literally means “to have a desire for, long for, to desire, covet.” It does not necessarily have anything to do, whatsoever, with thinking about “sex,” when it's in reference to a woman. Why? Because it was okay to “desire” (covet after, lust after) unmarried women (as long as it did not violate any of God's sexual restrictions in Leviticus 18 and elsewhere). Coveting a neighbour's wife is wrong, because she is married to another. Coveting after a neighbor's daughter is not wrong, because she is not married to another. Before one can be ”betrothed” to someone's daughter, one must first “desire” her. Even God himself said that if one sees a beautiful looking woman, and desires her, this is good, and he may marry her: Deuteronomy 21:10-13, "When thou goest forth to war…And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house…and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife." One thing the above passage teaches us about Matthew 5:27-28 is that to lust and desire after an unmarried woman is okay, if you desire her to be your wife, because she is not already taken. But lusting after a married woman, as is shown elsewhere in scripture, is not okay, because she is already taken. If you look at scriptural history, before a man would marry a woman, he would first have a “desire” towards her, and would “covet” her. To give another example, in Genesis 29, Jacob kissed a girl he never saw before, Rachel (verse 11), she was “beautiful” to him (verse 17), and because Jacob desired her, and loved her, he asked her father if he could marry her (verse 18), and Jacob eventually married her (verse 28). It was not a sin for Jacob to “desire” Rachel. Jacob did not commit “adultery” in his heart by desiring Rachel. Jacob did not commit “fornication” in his heart by desiring Rachel. Why? Because she was unmarried. What is the first thing that a man does before he even considers marrying a woman? The first thing he does is “desire” her, “covets” her, and “lusts” her. One would not marry a woman unless he had a desire for her. Unfortunately, some families command and force a man to marry a woman, against their will, which is unscriptural. Even the law of God commands a man to marry a woman in certain situations, but will allow them to not marry if one so desires, and it will not be counted as sin against them. One example is where God said that if a wife's husband dies, then the husband's brother was to marry her. However, if that man does not “desire” her, then God gives him the choice of not marrying her, and he does not have to marry her (Deuteronomy 25:5-10)! The man has first choice. God does not force men to marry women against their will, and it is wrong for families to force men to marry women, if they do not “desire” them. God wants “desire” to play a role in marriage. God is not a tyrant. God's law also commands a man and women to get married if they have sex with each other for the first time. But if the father does not “desire” his daughter to marry him, God said they do not have to get married, even though God commanded them to get married (Deuteronomy 22:28, Exodus 22:16-17). Why? Because if someone does not have a “desire” to get married, God does not force it upon them. God wants “desire” to play a role in marriage. And finally, in the case of Rebekah and Isaac, it was shown how it was God's Will that they both be married (Genesis 24), and after all the families knew it was God's Will for Rebekah to marry Isaac, her family still asked her if she desired to marry him! Genesis 24:58, "And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go." They would not have forced her to marry Isaac if she did not desire to marry him, even if it was God's Will. God wants “desire” to play a role in marriage. Here's a question. If somebody thinks about having sex with an unmarried woman (who is not blood related), can you show me, from scripture, what sexual sin one would be at risk of violating? For example: If a man is thinking about having sex with another man's wife, they would be at risk of violating Exodus 20:14, of which the penalty is death to both if carried out, and the penalty for this sin can be found at Leviticus 20:10. If a man is thinking about having sex with his sister, they would be at risk of violating Leviticus 18:9, of which the penalty is death to both if carried out, and the penalty for this sin can be found at Leviticus 20:17. If a man is thinking about having sex with an animal, they would be at risk of violating Leviticus 18:23 and Deuteronomy 27:21, of which the penalty is death to both if carried out, and the penalty for this sin can be found at Leviticus 20:15. All Sins require a Sacrifice If an act is not a sin, then to think of that act is, likewise, not a sin. For example, if it is not a sin to eat carrots, then to think of eating carrots is not a sin. I'm sure we will all agree on that. Let us presume that Jesus was referring to fornication between all women in Matthew 5:27-28; that he was referring to both married and unmarried women in this passage. In order for it to be wrong to lust after an unmarried woman, then it must be a sin to have sex with an unmarried woman. Agreed? If it is a sin to have sex with an unmarried women, then it would be wrong to think about having sex with her also. Agreed? And, if by chance the opposite be true, if it is not a sin to have sex with an unmarried woman, then it would not be wrong to think about having sex with an unmarried woman. Agreed? Let us establish another scriptural truth before proceeding. In order for something to be considered a sin, there must be the shedding of blood to atone for that specific and particular sin. In the Old Testament, a sin required either the shedding of blood of an animal, or it required the shedding of blood of man, "to make an attonement for your souls" (Leviticus 17:11). Either way, all sins require a death penalty. No exceptions. Similarly, in man's law, when a wrong is done, a "remedy" is required. There is something that the violator of the law must do in order to "right the wrong" he has done. In God's Law, there is something the sinner must do to right the wrong as well. Some sins required people to bathe themselves and their clothes in water (Numbers 19:19-20 - all the washings and sprinklings under Levitical institutions were designed to teach the necessity of the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Ghost - Titus 3:3-7), but at the end of the year, an animal would be killed for those sins (Exodus 30:10, Leviticus 16:34, Hebrews 7:27; 9:7). For example, anyone who came in contact with any thing unclean was to wash their clothes and themselves in clean water, and were considered unclean till the evening (Leviticus 11:24-31), then blood would be shed at the end of the year as well. However, if somebody did this act in ignorance, and he was not aware at the time that it was wicked, then he was guilty (Leviticus 5:2), and he had sinned (Leviticus 5:5), and since he did not wash himself in water that very day, he must now shed the blood of an animal immediately (Leviticus 5:6-13). The purpose of shedding blood is to cleanse the land of sin. If an act does not require the sinner to “do” something to cleanse himself or the land, then there is nothing to clean! And if there is nothing to clean, God does not consider that act unclean! And if an act is not unclean, it is not a sin! Period! No matter how many people believe a particular act is a sin, if there is no penalty mentioned for committing this act, if there is no shedding of blood, God does not consider that act a sin. And if God does not consider it a sin, then, in truth, it is not a sin! No matter how many people believe otherwise. Numbers 35:33, "...the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it." Hebrews 9:22, "And almost all things with blood are purified according to the law, and apart from blood shedding there is no remission." Without the shedding of blood, there is no "remission of sins" See also Leviticus 4:20,26; 6:7; 16:15-18; 17:11. When the above passage says "almost" all things are purified with blood, it does not mean that some sins do not need the shedding of blood to be remissed (because this verse says that the shedding of blood is the only thing that will remis sins), but it means that some sins are so great that it cannot be remissed even by the shedding of blood. For example, Jesus Christ said the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven (Matthew 12:31-32, Mark 3:28-29, Luke 12:10). Let's look at an example of atoning for the sin of theft. Theft relates to the sanctity of property. Scripture says God owns everything in Heaven and earth (Psalms 24:1; 115:16), and He has only entrusted property to others. Thus, theft is considered a sin, not only because one is stealing from man, but also because one is stealing from God as well (Leviticus 6:2), and it required a trespass offering (Leviticus 6:5), which meant that an animal must die (Leviticus 5:6). The reason for a trespass offering is because theft is a trespass against the LORD (Leviticus 5:19). This is important to remember. If something is a sin against the LORD, it requires the shedding of blood! “Coveting” after a neighbor's things (God's Tenth Commandment) may lead one to commit theft (God's Eighth Commandment). Jesus' point, in Matthew 5:27-28, was that “coveting” after a married woman (God's Tenth Commandment) may lead one to commit physical adultery (God's Seventh Commandment), and that is the reason why one has committed adultery in one's heart. However, is it a “sin” to covet after a neighbor's wife? The answer is “no.” Why did God command us not to lust after a neighbor's wife? Because it may lead to sin, but it is not a sin itself. This can be easily shown by the penalties imposed by breaking the “Ten Commandments.” If a death penalty is required for breaking a particular commandment, then yes, it is a sin. If no death penalty is required, then no, it is not considered a sin. Here are the penalties for breaking each of the Ten Commandments: 1st – Man was put to death for having other gods before Him (Exodus 22:20, Deuteronomy 18:20), or preaching to others to worship other gods (Deuteronomy 13:5-10). 2nd - Man was put to death for serving other gods (Deuteronomy 13:5-10), or communicating with spirits (Leviticus 20:27). 3rd - Man was put to death for taking the Lords' name in vain (Leviticus 24:16), or trespassing on sacred ground (Exodus 19:12). 4th - Man was put to death for working on the sabbath (Exodus 31:14-15; 35:2, Numbers 15:35). 5th - Man was put to death for not honouring his father and mother (Exodus 21:15,17, Leviticus 20:9). 6th - Man was put to death for murder (Exodus 21:12, Leviticus 24:17,21, Numbers 35:16-31), even if owner's animal kills someone (Exodus 21:29). 7th - Man was put to death for adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), rape (Deuteronomy 22:25), sleeping with animals (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16). 8th Man had to sacrifice an animal for stealing physical property (Leviticus 5:6,19; 6:2,5), or he was put to death for stealing another man for the purpose of selling him (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7). 9th – Man had to sacrifice an animal for lying (Leviticus 6:1-6), or he was put to death for bearing false witness in certain situations (Deuteronomy 19:16-21, Proverbs 19:9; 21:28). 10th – no penalty for coveting!!! Why is there no penalty for violating the 10th Commandment? Because it is not a sin to covet! It is only a temptation, which may lead to sin. But temptations are not sins. Only when temptations conceive into a physical act can it be considered a sin. James 1:14-15, "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin..." Does this mean it is okay to lust after your neighbour's wife? No, it is obviously against God's Will if we covet after our neighbour's wife, but just because something is not God's Will, it does not mean it is a sin. To covet your neighbour's wife may lead to adultery. Coveting your neighbour's property may lead to stealing. But it is not a sin to lust after these things, because only when thoughts materialize into actions can it be considered a sin. Today, how do we atone for the sin of physical adultery? Through Christ's blood, we receive remission and atonement of all sins (Matthew 26:28, Romans 3:25; 5:11 ). In the Old Testament, this was represented by the blood of man when he committed physical adultery. Now, if lusting is a sin, and this sin is atoned by the blood of Christ, my question is, what is this represented by in the Old Testament? What blood was shed in the Old Testament for lusting? The answer is, there was no blood shed. Why? Because it was not considered a sin. A temptation yes, but temptations are not sins. Is it a Sin to have Sex with an Unmarried Woman? Does scripture say it is a sin to have sex with an unmarried woman? If a sexual relationship requires the penalty of blood, then it is a sin against the Lord. If a sexual relationship requires no penalty of blood, then it is not a sin against the Lord. For example, if one sleeps with one's own wife, there is no need for a blood sacrifice of either man or animal. Why? Because it is not a sin to do so. Now, let us see what God's penalty was for having sex between men and women. If a married man was convicted of adultery, both he and the married woman that lay with him were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). If a married woman was convicted of adultery, both she and the man that lay with her were to be executed (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). If a betrothed virgin was convicted of adultery, both she and the man that lay with her were to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:23-24). If a man forces a betrothed woman to have sex with him, the man was executed, but the woman was blameless (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). Obviously, the above sexual acts are considered sins, because it required the shedding of man's blood to atone for those sins. How cruel it would be of God if He did not make clear that these sexual acts are a sin, and that blood was required to cleanse this sin! Remember, scripture is clear that only married women could be guilty of adultery, not unmarried women (Leviticus 20:10, Deuteronomy 22:22). Even betrothed (engaged) women could be guilty of adultery, because she was a man's “wife” once they became betrothed, which is the reason why scripture says if a man rapes a betrothed (married) woman, then he was to be executed (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). It is a sin to do this to a married woman. Why is it a sin? Because the man committed adultery (but the woman would be held guiltless). Deuteronomy 22:25, "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her…" However, there is nothing in scripture that says a man was to be executed for raping an unmarried woman! Deuteronomy 22:25-27 does not say, “But if a man find a damsel in the field,” which would refer to any and all women. No, it explicitly limits it to only women who were a wife. Does this mean there were no consequences to raping a woman just because she was not married? Of course not. For a rape to occur, there must be a “stealing” of her, or, a kidnapping. And under God's Law, stealing and kidnapping were punishable by the shedding of blood (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, 1 Timothy 1:10, Revelation 18:13). However, if a man was punished for raping an unmarried woman, it was not for the crime of adultery (which is a sexual act), but for a different crime. But let us now examine the consequences of an unmarried man and an unmarried virgin that have sex willfully with each other. What is the penalty? Is there the shedding of blood of man, as in the case of adultery? No. Well, is there the shedding of blood of an animal, as in the case of theft? No. Well, just what kind of penalty was there for having sex with an unmarried woman? Well, there is no penalty! As a matter of fact, they were commanded, by God himself, to marry each other (Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28)! To marry! And to marry a virgin required a payment of fifty shekels of silver to her father as well. There was no shedding of blood required! Why not? Could it be that God did not consider it a sin for an unmarried man and an unmarried woman to have sex together? After all, all sins always required the shedding of blood. Otherwise, it is not a sin in God's eyes. But, you may ask, “What is the penalty if that man and woman do not get married, like God commands?” Well, the father could utterly refuse to give his daughter away to a man, and then that couple would not have to get married. But the man still had to pay the father “money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16-17), which was “fifty shekels of silver,” (Deuteronomy 22:28), the same price as if he did marry her, and then the man and woman did not have to get married! They were “off the hook”! That's all! But keep in mind, this payment to the father is not a penalty! Scripture explicitly says why this dowry price was paid to the father, so there is no need for conjecture. It was not to be paid because of a penalty, but "...because he hath humbled her" (Deuteronomy 22:29). Any man who humbles a virgin, whether it be a man who marries her after going through the betrothal period, a man who marries her without going through betrothal, a man who marries her because he had sex with her first, or even a man who had sex with a virgin without marrying her, all men pay this dowry price to the father for the same reason; “Because he hath humbled her.” It is not a penalty. (Note: one shekel of silver was equivalent to 4 days wages. Therefore, 50 shekels of silver would be equivalent to 200 days wages). How about the woman in this case? Was there any penalty for her willingly sleeping with a man before marriage? Well, there was no penalty at all! There was no shedding of blood on either her part or on the part of the man who slept with her. In other words, to have sex with an unmarried woman is not considered a sin against God! The land was not considered unclean after this act. If one considers this act a sin against God, then we have to change the established scriptural truth that all sins require the shedding of blood. We have to change God's Truth to fit our pre-conceived ideas. But, we all know it is wrong to do that. It is much easier to accept scripture for what it says, rather than try to make it say something it does not say. And, unlike rape, one cannot claim this act is “theft,” because if somebody willfully gives something to another, it is not theft to take what another willfully offers. You may ask, “Well, what happens if the man who sleeps with the woman refuses to marry her?” Well, there is no penalty mentioned! No shedding of blood. As a matter of fact, there is another law of God that also commands a man and woman to marry. We can learn what happens in this case by going to that passage. In Deuteronomy 25:5-10, God's Law states that if a woman's husband dies, and has no child, then the husband's brother must marry her and become her husband. This is Law! Now, what is the penalty if this man disobeys God and refuses to marry her? Is this a sin? Does his blood have to be shed? Does the blood of an animal have to be shed for this defiance? Well, let's see. Verses 9 and 10 state the penalty that must be inflicted on this man. The woman, in the presence of the elders, is to “loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face” (verse 9)! And his name shall be called, “The house of him that hath his shoe loosed” (verse 10). That's it! The act of spitting, whether in or before the face, marked the strong contempt the woman felt for the man who had slighted her. And it appears that the man was disgraced in Israel. However, there was no shedding of blood involved, because there is no sin involved in refusing to marry a woman that God commanded to marry. Remember, God does not “force” people to marry against their will. You may ask, “Well, what happens if the man refuses to pay the father the dowry price?” Well, there is no penalty imposed on the man in this passage for refusing to pay the father this price. However, one can accuse him of theft in this case, since he owed the father a debt and did not pay it, and he would be penalized according to the theft of money. However, if he was a man after God, he would marry her, and at the very least, pay the dowry price to her father (this is why we should not be yoked with unbelievers). Notice, too, that only an unmarried virgin was commanded to marry, not an unmarried woman who was not a virgin. This dowry price only applied to unmarried women who were virgins, not to unmarried women who were not virgins. That is why it is called, in scripture, “dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:17). Once a woman is no longer a virgin, there are no more payments to be made to the father. There is even a maxim of law which states, “The law favors dower; it is the reward of chastity.” In addition, this helps prevent the father from making a harlot out of his daughter, since he cannot get any more money from another man if he sleeps with her. But either way, there is no penalty mentioned in scripture for having sex with an unmarried woman, whether she was a virgin or a non-virgin. That is, unless you consider marriage a penalty to atone for ones sins?! But scripture says only the shedding of blood can atone for sins, not marriage. Marriage is not a penalty! Spiritual Truths are expressed through Physical Truths All spiritual truths are expressed through physical truths. One must first have an understanding of the physical act of adultery before one can understand the spiritual act of adultery in one's heart. One must understand that when an act requires the shedding of blood physically, this means this is a sin against God spiritually as well. If an act does not require the shedding of blood, then that means that act is not a sin! Because without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sins. The physical meaning of marriage represents the spiritual meaning of marriage: Physical: married man + married woman = Marriage Covenant Spiritual: God + Israel = Covenant with God The physical meaning of adultery represents the spiritual meaning of adultery: Physical: married woman + other lovers = Physical Adultery (Against spouse) Spiritual: Israel + Heathen Nations = Spiritual Adultery (Against God) Now, if Jesus said that all women, even unmarried woman, can commit adultery, then spiritually, that means all women are in a marriage covenant: Physical: married man + unmarried woman = Marriage Covenant??? Spiritual: God + Heathen Nations = Covenant with God??? And Adultery would thus mean: Physical: unmarried man + unmarried woman = Physical Adultery??? (Against Who?) Spiritual: Heathen Nations + Heathen Nations = Spiritual Adultery??? (Against Who?) All spiritual truth is represented by physical truth. The scripture shows the spiritual meaning of adultery by showing us its physical representative…physical adultery. If an unmarried woman can now commit spiritual adultery, then where is its corresponding physical representative? Where is it stated that unmarried women can commit adultery? And where is this spiritual adultery represented in the spiritual realm today? It is not. For example, in the parable of the ten virgins (Matthew 25:1-12), this represents the marriage of believers with Christ and His New Testament. The five virgins who married Jesus, can they commit adultery against Jesus? Yes, they can. The five virgins who did not marry Jesus, can they commit adultery against Jesus, even if Jesus told them, “I know you not” (verse 12)? No they cannot. But if Jesus changed the spiritual meaning of adultery in Matthew 5, then that means these unmarried women can commit adultery! This means the Heathens are on an equal basis with Believers. That God will punish them for adultery, for breaking their covenant, when they have never entered into a covenant with God! That would mean there is no more difference between sinning in ignorance and sinning willfully! God never called Heathen nations “adulterers,” only Israel. God never called unmarried women “adulterers,” only married women. In the New Testament, only believers can commit spiritual adultery with Christ. But we must throw this distinction out now if Jesus said all people can commit adultery now. Now we can say, “we are all the children of God,” “Everyone is saved no matter what,” because we are all under the Covenant of God, believers and unbelievers alike. This supposed spiritual meaning of Matthew 5:27-28 is not represented anywhere in the scriptures. Therefore, if Jesus was saying all women can commit adultery, even unmarried women, Jesus would be teaching something completely new, and something that contradicts what both the Old and New Testaments say. |