| 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? |
| Your Questions Answered
Since there is no penalty if an unmarried man and an unmarried woman have sex together, what is preventing unmarried couples from having casual sex, and from having multiple sex partners before marriage? Answer: Well, for the heathens, nothing is preventing this. However, for those who believe in the truth of God's Law, there is a preventive measure built into it. Deuteronomy 22:28 and Exodus 22:16-17 was an exceedingly wise law, and must have operated powerfully against seduction and fornication; because the man who might feel inclined to take advantage of a young woman knew that he must marry her, nor had he authority ever to put her away by a bill of divorce. He must also pay a dowry, if her parents consented; and if her parents did not consent to their daughter marrying her seducer, he was obliged to give them the full dowry which could have been demanded had she still been a virgin. This consideration was a powerful curb on disorderly passions, and must tend greatly to render marriages respectable, and prevent couples from having sex casually. This law is still applicable today, and those men and women who do not marry after having sex are disobeying the Lord. However, they are not disobeying God by having sex before marriage, they are disobeying him by not getting married after having sex. Scripture says that a virgin is holy in both body and spirit (1 Corinthians 7:34). Therefore, it is God's Will that one be a virgin, and it would be a sin to not be a virgin before marriage. Answer: Yes, a virgin is holy is God's eyes, and it is pleasing to God when a man and woman keep themselves pure, and remain virgins, until they are married. However, this does not mean it is a sin to do otherwise. Just because something is "holy," it does not mean that when something is not holy, it's a sin. To be "holy" means to be dedicated to God. Here are some examples of things being "holy," yet these same things are not a "sin" when unholy. When Moses stood before the Lord on Mount Sinai, God told Moses to take off his shoes because he was standing on "holy ground" (Exodus 3:5). Does that mean all other ground on the earth is sinful? Just because it's not holy? No. There are seven days in the week. The seventh day of the week is the Sabbath, and it is a "holy day" (Exodus 35:2). Does that mean the other six days of the week are sinful just because they are not "holy" or "dedicated"? No. The clothing that Aaron wore were "holy garments" (Exodus 28:2). Does that mean everybody else's garments are sinful just because it's not "holy"? No. If somebody uses something other than "holy anointing oil" (Exodus 30:25), does that mean they will sin if they use vegetable oil, olive oil, or other oils? No. If a bread is not "shewbread" (Matthew 12:4), or "hallowed bread" (1 Samuel 21:4), does that mean all other bread is sinful because it's not holy? No. If a man does not "sanctify his house to be holy unto the LORD" (Leviticus 27:14), does that mean every other house in the world which is not sanctified is sinful? No. Likewise, just because the state of a "virgin" is holy, it does not mean the state of a non-virgin is sinful. Especially if God does not say it is sinful, or have any penalties imposed upon someone once they become a non-virgin. You claim that thoughts cannot be a sin, only the act. But what about these verses? Didn't God say, in Genesis 4:7, when Cain was wroth, and was thinking about killing Abel, he was sinning? Answer: No. When Cain's countenance fell, and was planning evil things, God said that sin was lying at the door. In other words, sin was about to enter. Genesis 4:6-7, "And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door." And it did enter. In the next verse, Cain killed his brother Abel. When Cain was thinking about killing his brother, he was being tempted, and sin was close by. It wasn't until he actually killed his brother that it was considered sin. But doesn't James 4:17 say that he who "knows" to do good, but doesn't do it, to him it is sin? Answer: Yes. But notice that it was not his thoughts that made it a sin, it was his lack of action. James 4:17, "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin." If a man has an opportunity of saving a man's life when he is in danger, and does not do it, he is guilty of his death. It was not necessarily any sinful thoughts that caused this sin, it was his lack of action. What about Romans 14:23, "...for whatsoever is not of faith is sin"? Answer: The context shows that Paul meant that whatever actions one does, without a full persuasion of its lawfulness, (see Romans 14:22) it is a sin to him; for he does it under a conviction that he may be wrong in so doing. Whatever a man cannot do with a clear conscience, believing it to be right, ought not to do it. If he in is doubtful whether they are right, he must not do them. This is speaking about acts. But if somebody does something against God's Will, is that not a sin? Answer: No, not necessarily. It is true that all sins go against God's Will, yes; but not all things that go against God's Will are sinful. For example, God's Law says, "Thou shalt not plow with an ox and an ass together" (Deuteronomy 22:10). Now, what is the penalty mentioned in scripture if somebody goes against God's Will and plows with an ox and an ass together? Well, there is no penalty mentioned, which means there is no blood shed, which means it is not a sin. However, there are consequences. A "yoke" is something fixed together on the neck of oxen for the purpose of binding them so that they might draw the plow. The reason God forbids an ox and an ass to be yoked together is because they would plow in different directions, and the farmer would not get much work done! But, not getting any work done because of this is not a penalty, it is a consequence. This is also the reason why God commanded His people to be separate from unbelievers, and why Jesus commanded us to be yoked to Him (Matthew 11:29-30). If we do His will, He will guide our steps. If we do our own will, we will pull in different directions. The One who created us knows what's best for us. He tells us what is best for us in His Word. But if we don't do what is best for us, it does not necessarily mean it is a sin to do so. Another example; God's Law says, "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof" (Deuteronomy 22:8). If you had a flat roof with access from the inside to the roof, and people will be spending time on the roof, God commanded that we put a railing around the roof. What is the penalty for failing to do this? Well, there is no penalty mentioned, which means there is no blood shed, which means it is not a sin. However, there are consequences. One of which may be that someone may fall off and be killed, in which case the one who failed to put the railing on the roof would suffer the consequences of manslaughter. The command to put a railing on the roof is designed to prevent a wrong from happening, but it is not a sin if one disobeys this command. If somebody fell off a roof with no railing, the one in the wrong would be penalized, not for failing to put a railing around the roof, but for manslaughter. Likewise, the command to not lust after a married women is designed to prevent physical adultery from happening, but it is not a sin if one disobeys this command, at most it is only a temptation. If somebody slept with a neighbor's wife, he would be penalized, not for lusting after her, but for physical adultery. There is a difference between a punishment and a consequence. For example, when my brother was 3 years old, he moved a chair over to an oven and stood on the chair. One of the burners were on and it was hot. His father was watching him, and had told him several times not to touch the burner, but my brother's curiosity was too strong. My brother stretched out his hand to touch the burner, but his father did not try to stop him this time. After he touched the burner, he withdrew his hand very rapidly because of the pain. His father looked at him and said, very slowly, "hot." My brother looked at him and repeated, "hot." From that moment on, my brother knew that if his father said, "hot," then he would get hurt. This was a learning experience for him. Now, let me ask you this. Was it his father's will that he touch that burner? No, his father did not want his son to get burned. Did my brother sin by disobeying his father's will? No. When my brother got burned, was that a punishment for his disobedience? No. Was it a consequence? Yes. Therefore, if we disobey our Father's Will, there will be consequences. But these consequences are not necessarily a punishment for sinning against him. But there is a penalty if a man has sex with an unmarried women, and that penalty is death (Genesis 34). Answer: Let us examine this chapter in context. This chapter tells of Shechem (son of a prince) sleeping with Dinah (the daughter of Jacob and Leah), before marriage. He humbled her (verse 2). He loved her and spoke kindly to her (verse 3). He desired to marry her (verse 4). This is not a sexual pervert we are dealing with here. This is a man who has fallen in love with a woman and desires to take care of her for the rest of her life. Remember, God's Law says that a man must marry a woman if he has sex with her (Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28). So far, Shechem is willing to obey God's Law. Hamor, the father of Shechem, communed with Dinah's family, and asked them their permission for Dinah to marry Shechem (verses 8-9), and even offered her family to dwell in their land, and to trade, and to be as brothers (verse 10). Shechem even asked Dinah's father and her brothers personally to find grace in their eyes, and whatever they shall say unto him he will give them (verse 11). He was willing to give dowry and gifts according to whatever they asked (verse 12). So far, Shechem and Hamor have acted honestly, and they show every desire to establish friendly intercourse. He did not take her by force and rape her. He did not intend on marrying her without her family's permission. But he showed respect to her and her family by approaching them and fellowshipping with them. However, Dinah's brothers were angry with Shechem (verse 7). Simeon and Levi answered Shechem and Hamor deceitfully (verse 13), and agreed to give Dinah to wife on the condition that they be circumcised, and every male in their city be circumcised (verses 14-15), and if they do this, both families will become one people (verse 16). However, Dinah's brothers also said if they did not get circumcised, then they will take Dinah and leave and she will not marry him (verse 17). Shechem did not delay to get circumcised, because he had “delight” in Dinah (verse 19). Shechem and Hamor took Dinah's family to their city and communed together, and every male was circumcised according to their agreement (verses 20-24). As we can see, there has been no evil intent on the part of Shechem or Hamor, and they were willing to do whatever it took to marry Dinah honorably, according to both God's Law and her family's wishes. No act was done to deserve a death penalty. Now, let us proceed. On the third day, Simeon and Levi each took a sword and slew all the males in the city, including Shechem and Hamor (after a man is circumcized, he is very weak, so these men would not have been able to defend themselves), and took Dinah out of Shechem's house and went out. Then Simeon and Levi plundered the city, took their sheep, oxen, donkeys, and that which was in the city and field, and took all their wealth. They took all their children and their wives captive, and plundered all that was in the house (verses 25-29). Dear reader, was this punishment just? Did Shechem deserve to die, when God's Law commands him to marry her? Let us go to scripture to see if what Simeon and Levi did was good or bad. Immediately after Simeon and Levi did these things, Jacob said: Genesis 34:30, "And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house." Jacob, their father, rebuked them! It was not Shechem that deserved the death penalty, now it was Judah and his family that deserved the death penalty for the evil Simeon and Levi committed. What else did Jacob have to say about his sons? Genesis 49:5-7, "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their self-will they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce; and their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel." You see, it was not Shechem who was in the wrong, it was Dinah's brother's who were in the wrong. Simeon and Levi did not kill Shechem because that was the penalty that God laid down; Simeon and Levi killed him because it was their “self-will” (not God's Will). Because of their anger (not God's anger). Because they were “instruments of cruelty” (not because they were instruments of God). Therefore, this chapter does not condone the death penalty if a man sleeps with an unmarried woman; this chapter condemns the death penalty if a man sleeps with an unmarried woman! The word “humbled” is rendered “defiled” in the King James Version, and most people believe Dinah was raped. This is Hebrew word #6031,” and this word means “humbled.” It means to have sex. It does not have the meaning of “rape,” even though having sex can be rape (Deuteronomy 22:24, 2 Samuel 13:14,22,32, Lamentations 5:11). However, there is no hint in Genesis 34 that she was raped. Surely, Dinah would have put up resistance to marrying a rapist, but she does not. By comparing other verses, we can understand that “humbling” a woman usually involved marrying her. Genesis 31:50, "If thou shalt afflict (humble – word #6031) my daughters, or if thou shalt take other wives beside my daughters, no man is with us; see, God is witness betwixt me and thee." (Word #6031 had the meaning of taking his daughters as wives! This happens when a woman is humbled, or has sex). Deuteronomy 21:13-14, "…thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife. And it shall be, if thou have no delight in her, then thou shalt let her go whither she will; but thou shalt not sell her at all for money, thou shalt not make merchandise of her, because thou hast humbled (word #6031) her." Again, this is in reference to having sex with a woman for marriage. Deuteronomy 22:28-29, "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled (word #6031) her, he may not put her away all his days." What about Deuteronomy 22:20-21? If a man marries a woman, and finds out the woman is not a virgin (had sex before marriage), look at what happened to this woman. This passage plainly says that God considers a woman who has sex before marriage someone who has played the "whore." She was to be stoned to death. Therefore, God must consider it a serious crime for a woman to have willful sex before marriage. Answer: This passage is taken out of context. First of all, the man was betrothed to a woman who was supposed to be a virgin. He paid the dowry price of a virgin to her father, and this was the agreement between the man and the woman's family. If a man consummated his marriage by having sex with her, and the man accused her of not being a virgin, according to their agreement, then they were to go to “the judges” and solve this matter. The parents of the woman were to show proof that their daughter was a virgin, according to their agreement. If they prove that she was indeed a virgin, then the husband would be chastised, and he would be fined a hundred shekels of silver, which would be given it to the father of the woman, because that man “hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel” (Deuteronomy 22:14-19). However, if what the man said was true, and the woman was not a virgin, then this means the woman lied to this man. She bore false witness against him and God. Therefore, they were to bring this woman to the door of her father's house (since her parents partook of her lie) and stone her to death. Why such a serious penalty? Because, again, this marriage involved an oath which was not only made between the husband and wife, but it was made before God as well. Therefore, it was actually an act of blasphemy against God, which carried the penalty of stoning to death (Leviticus 24:16,23). Specifically, she broke God's third Commandments at Exodus 20:7, "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain," and God's ninth Commandment at Exodus 20:16, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Doesn't having sex with an unmarried woman fall into the category of those who “walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleaness” (2 Peter 2:10) and “the lust of the flesh” (1 John 2:16)? Answer: Notice that this “lust of the flesh” must be “unclean.” God tells us which “lusts of the flesh” are unclean in His Word. If something is “unclean,” it requires a blood sacrifice, because blood is used to clean that which is unclean (or, at the very least, it requires to be bathed in water). Where, in scripture, is a blood sacrifice required for having sex with an unmarried woman (or bathing in water)? The fact that God does not have a blood sacrifice for this act (or commands one to be bathed in water) shows that God does not consider that act unclean, because everything that's unclean requires blood to atone for it (or water). If there is no atonement for this act, how can one possibly repent of this act? If God does not say it is a sin, what right have we to say it is now a sin? What about 1 Corinthians 7:1. "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” Answer: The phrase “not to touch a woman,” was an idiom which meant, “not to marry.” Paul was saying that on account of “the present distress,” (verse 26) it was good not to have family ties. He goes into more detail about why it is good to not marry in verses 26-40, but this is only because of the persecutions and distress the Corinthians were presently going through. Paul was not forbidding to marry; Paul specifically said that his judgment about it being good not to marry was not a command from God, but was his own judgment (verse 25). Besides, Paul wrote elsewhere that “forbidding to marry” is a doctrine of devils (1 Timothy 4:1-3, Hebrews 13:4). Paul was not forbidding to marry, he was only saying that it was preferable not to do so because of the present distress the Corinthians were going through. But he also said, in 1 Corinthians 7:2, to go ahead and marry in order to avoid fornication. What about 1 Corinthians 7:2,9, “Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." Answer: Okay. What does “fornication” mean? Does it mean to have sex with any woman who is not married? Let's see what kind of fornication Paul is talking about to the Corinthians. In context, the kind of fornication Paul is talking about is sleeping with a father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1), and sleeping with a [married] whore (1 Corinthians 6:16-18). These are the two types of fornication that Paul is talking about to the Corinthians, because these are the types of acts that the Corinthians were doing at the time. Fornication is never defined, in scripture, as sleeping with an unmarried woman other than one who is not blood related. Never. Elsewhere in the New Testament, fornication is defined as bowing down and serving other gods (1 Corinthians 10:8, referring to Numbers 25:1-9), and as homosexuality, like in Sodom and Gomorrah (Jude 1:7). Each and every one of these sins can be traced back to the Old Testament. Sleeping with a father's wife (1 Corinthians 5:1) is specifically mentioned in Leviticus 18:8, and is considered adultery in God's eyes, and its penalty is mentioned in Leviticus 18:20, which is death to both. Bowing down and serving other gods (1 Corinthians 10:8) is mentioned in God's first and second commandments (Exodus 20:3-4), and its penalty is mentioned in Deuteronomy 13:5-10, which is death. Homosexuality (Jude 1:7) is mentioned in Leviticus 18:22, and its penalty in Leviticus 18:22, which is death to both. Now, if “fornication” refers to a man sleeping with an unmarried woman, where are the corresponding verses in the Old Testament, and its penalty? But doesn't 1 Corinthians 7:9 say that if a man or woman cannot contain themselves, it is better to marry than to burn with passion and lust? Answer: First of all, Paul made it clear that this statement is not a commandment from the Lord, it is not a commandment from himself, but Paul is expressing what he personally would like to see the Corinthians do (verse 6-7). The word "burn" here does not refer to burning with lust. Let us look at Adam Clarke's Commentary concerning 1 Corinthians, Chapter 7, Verse 9: But if they cannot contain] If they find it inconvenient and uncomfortable to continue as widowers and widows, let them remarry. It is better to marry than to burn. Bishop Pearce translates the original thus: For it is better to marry than to be made uneasy. purousyai, says he, "signifies primarily to burn; but in a metaphorical sense, to be troubled, vexed, or made uneasy. So in 2 Corinthians 11:29: Who is offended and I burn not (i.e., and I am not troubled). So in Terence, Uro hominem, is I vex him." It would be well to soften the sense of this word in reference to the subject of which the apostle speaks. He cannot mean burning with lust, no more than Virgil means so when he says, AEn. iv. ver. 68: Uritur infelix Dido, the unfortunate Dido is tormented; and in Eccl. ii. 68: Me tamen urit amor, love torments me. All this may be said with the strictest truth in such cases where the impure fire referred to above has no existence. Can you explain 2 Corinthians 12:21, "And lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and that I shall bewail many which have sinned already, and have not repented of the uncleanness and fornication and lasciviousness which they have committed." Answer: Remember, for something to be “unclean,” there must have been something done to cleanse the land. There was no shedding of blood for sleeping with an unmarried woman, and there was no other kind of task that was performed to cleanse the land for sleeping with an unmarried woman, therefore, it was not considered unclean, or a sin, by God. Fornication is not described as something that takes place between an unmarried man and unmarried woman, except with certain blood relatives. You claim that Jesus taught nothing new, and that Jesus did not change the penalty of adultery. But Jesus did change the penalty of adultery! He did not condemn a woman caught in the very act of adultery! John 8:3-11, "And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." Answer: This passage clearly shows us that Jesus was following God's Law, not changing it. It would have been strange if Jesus, when he was not a judge (verse 15), and had not the witnesses before him to examine them (verse 10), nor a confession from the accused, and when she had not been tried and condemned by the law and legal judges, should have taken upon him to condemn her. This being the case, it appears why Jesus avoided giving an answer to the question of the scribes and Pharisees. What took place in John 8 follows the Old Testament law on punishing adultery. A woman accused of adultery could not be stoned to death if: 1. She did not confess her crime, or 2. There were no witnesses (Numbers 35:30, Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15), and 3. There was no judge to pronounce sentence (Deuteronomy 19:17-21). When Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn thee,” this is to be taken in the sense of judicial condemnation, or of passing sentence as a magistrate, for this was what they had arraigned her for in front of him. It was not to obtain his opinion about adultery, but to obtain the condemnation of the woman. As he claimed no authority to magistrate, he said that he did not exercise it, and should not condemn her to die. This is proven by Jesus' statement a few verses later, when he said, "I judge no man" (John 8:15). Elsewhere, Jesus said, "who made me a judge or a divider over you?" (Luke 12:14). Jesus also said, "for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world" (John 12:47). Jesus was not a judge, so he could not pass judgment upon the woman. And even if he was a judge, God's Law prohibited him from passing judgment without any accusers or witnesses. When Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you [He that is not guilty: his own conscience being the judge], let him [as a witness] first cast a stone at her" (verse 7), he was actually confirming God's Law, not changing it. Under the law, the witnesses were to cast the first stone (Deuteronomy 17:7-8). Jesus maintained and vindicated the law, but imposed a condition which they had overlooked. The one who executed the law must be free from the same crime, lest by stoning the woman he condemn himself as worthy of a like death. This was in order that the witness might feel his responsibility in giving evidence, as he was also to be the executioner. Jesus therefore put them to the test. Without pronouncing on her case, he directed them, if any of them were innocent, to perform the office of executioner. This was said, evidently, well knowing their guilt, and well knowing that no one would dare to do it. Jesus considered her act of adultery to be a sin, he did not change that. He told her, “Go, and sin no more.” In other words, Jesus basically told her, “You have sinned. You have been detected and accused. The sin is great. But I do not claim power to condemn you to die, and, as your accusers have left you, my direction to you is that you sin no more.” Therefore, this passage teaches us: 1st. That Jesus claimed no authority to magistrate. 2nd. That he regarded the action of which they accused her as sin. 3rd. That he knew the hearts and lives of men. 4th. That men are often very zealous in accusing others of that of which they themselves are guilty. And, 5th. That Jesus was endowed with wonderful wisdom in meeting the devices of his enemies, and eluding their deep-laid plans to involve. The scribes and Pharisees were the prosecutors and they brought her before Jesus to be the judge. They argued that Moses commanded that such a woman should be stoned. But they wanted to know how this new King Jesus would respond. Verse six reveals their evil intent. They were tempting him, that they might accuse Him. Jesus stooped down and with his finger wrote on the ground as if he had not heard them. Finally Jesus said, "He that is without sin among you, cast the first stone." Jesus was putting them on trial first. If they wanted to judge her, then they needed to be on trial first. The scribes and Pharisees must have been outraged. "Hey, she didn't pay the full penalty of the law." But, they left her alone because their lives were also in sin. Jesus also knew full well that none of them could even pretend to be sinless with any degree of believability. In bringing the woman accused of adultery, they had all conspired to sin! A woman cannot be found in the act of adultery without also a man being found with her, yet no man was brought with the accused. Also, as far as the guilty are concerned, Moses' law says that "they" shall surely be put to death, not that "she" alone shall be put to death. Conclusion to Matthew 5:27-28 Therefore, when Jesus said: Matthew 5:28, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." He was not saying it was a sin to lust after women, because lust, at most, is only a temptation, and only when temptations conceive into a physical act could it be considered a sin. Also, Jesus was referring only to married women in this passage because: An unmarried woman cannot cause a man to commit adultery. It is not a sin to have sex with all unmarried woman, as it is with all married women. Therefore, since it is not a sin to have sex with all unmarried woman, it could not be a sin to think about having sex with all unmarried woman. Therefore, since the restriction on lusting after women only applies to married women, and the penalty of adultery only applies to married woman, Jesus could not possibly be saying that it is adultery in ones heart to lust after all women! Dear reader, if you believe that there are sexual sins not mentioned in scripture, then we must change all these scriptural truths mentioned in this article: If something is a sin against God, He will tell us it is a sin against Him in His Word, and won't leave any sin out. False. In order for something to be considered a sin, there must be the shedding of blood to atone for that specific and particular sin. False. 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. False. Dear reader, if you believe Jesus was teaching it is a sin to lust after all women in Matthew 5:27-28, then we must also change all these other scriptural truths established in this article. Such as: Temptations are not sins. When a lust has conceived into an act, only then can it be considered a sin. False. Jesus taught nothing new! False. Adultery can only takes place when the woman is married. False. If a woman cannot cause you to commit adultery in the flesh (such as your own wife), then that woman certainly cannot cause you to commit adultery in your heart! False. If an act is not a sin, then to think of that act is, likewise, not a sin. False. All spiritual truth is represented by physical truth. False. Final Thoughts Even though it may not be a sin to have sex, in some cases, before marriage, nonetheless, both a godly woman and a godly man should keep themselves pure, and remain a virgin, until married. A virgin is holy in God's eyes (1 Corinthians 7:34), and it is pleasing to God when a women and man remain a virgin until married. |