PDA and Arousal

[Thomas]

I think you (and practically everyone) are attaching blanket immorality to the term "lust" that simply is not scriptural.

I have seen the following and similar explanations of the Greek word translated to lust on several trustworthy Christian sites:

The most common words translated as lust in the Bible are epithumeo, epipotheo, and orego. They all mean to desire, to covet, to long for intensely, to set one’s heart upon. This word is actually used in a positive sense in Matt. 13:17; Luke 22:15; 1Tim 3:1; Heb. 6:11; and 1Pet. 1:12. It is also used in a negative sense in Matt. 5:28; Rom. 7:7; 13:9; 1 Cor. 10:6; and James 4:2.
The NIV's is an unfortunate translation because the word epithumeo appearing in the verse is a verb (to lust) not an adverb (lustfully). The operative verb is not look, but lust. Jesus is not talking about how a man looks at the woman or thinks about a woman, but about a man lusting.

[David]

When Jesus says that looking at a woman lustfully is sin, he doesn't qualify that by saying "only if you're married and the woman isn't your wife". In fact, I think it's clear that he's making an absolute statement that applies to all men.
The question really is what we understand the word translated lust to mean in the context of a couple who are dating or engaged but not yet married.
The question is not "does this prohibition apply" but "what does this prohibition mean".

[MrEden]

When Jesus says that looking at a woman lustfully is sin, he doesn't qualify that by saying "only if you're married and the woman isn't your wife".

What makes you want to ignore the word adultery/moicheia? Ignoring that, how can you explain how the verse doesn't apply to a man lusting for his wife? I realize the OP asked this question to generate conversation (which he did ), but I have heard the question asked by people actually questioning this.

[newwifenewlife]

When Jesus says that looking at a woman lustfully is sin, he doesn't qualify that by saying "only if you're married and the woman isn't your wife".

What makes you want to ignore the word adultery/moicheia? Ignoring that, how can you explain how the verse doesn't apply to a man lusting for his wife? ...

Well, I don't know, maybe because a man (or woman) cannot commit adultery with their own spouse?

[David]

As @nwnl points out, what a man gets up to with his wife cannot, by definition, be adultery.

I don't think it's helpful to make sweeping statements like "this doesn't apply to single people". Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean it was fine for single men to watch porn or leer at women in bars.
What I think you're actually trying to argue is that there's nuance here. You're arguing that whilst some things must be kept for marriage, other things become more appropriate as you get closer to marriage.
It's true that it's good and healthy for an engaged man to have sexual desire for his bride-to-be, but that desire must be tempered by patience and a desire to wait until marriage. That's why we have to be careful with things like displays of affection which, whilst not sinful in themselves, can lead us into temptation.

[MrEden]

Well, I don't know, maybe because a man (or woman) cannot commit adultery with their own spouse?

My point exactly. Neither can an engaged couple commit adultery with each other. Jesus must have said "adultery" as opposed to "general sexual sin" for a reason.

Taken to its logical conclusion, that would mean it was fine for single men to watch porn or leer at women in bars.

desire must be tempered by patience and a desire to wait until marriage

Agree 100%. But not sure that this is the best verse to make that case. And, I was talking about engaged couples lusting for each other, not porn or leering at women in bars.

What I think you're actually trying to argue is that there's nuance here. You're arguing that whilst some things must be kept for marriage, other things become more appropriate as you get closer to marriage.

Well said. Thanks!

[David]

I think the point of difference comes from your assertion that an engaged couple can't commit adultery with each other.

Given that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "adultery" as being sex between a married person and someone not their spouse, it would be possible to argue that two unmarried people can't commit adultery. To do so would miss the point.
Jesus is teaching that sin is not primarily a problem of improper actions, but of corrupted desires. How that applies to an engaged couple is a little bit complex because they're not actually married but have pledged to marry. Suffice it to say that there are limits and boundaries that shouldn't be crossed before the wedding.

[Irnmyk]

I don't think that Jesus had a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary at hand. Rather, to understand His words, we should use the definition of the word Adultery as it was used in His time. (You can google the Jewish definition of adultery if you wish.)

That said, that doesn't take away at all from what @David said in his last paragraph, which I absolutely, absolutely agree with.