One of the most popular articles on this website is Why “Lusting” in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn’t Make All Men Adulterers. I’ve gotten more emails about that article than any other; maybe more than all others combined. Virtually all of them ask about one of three topics: porn, masturbation, and fantasy. More specifically, they want to know if the Bible/God allows Christians to view/engage in them.
That’s our topic today, starting with porn.
Does the Bible/God allow Christians to view porn?
The obvious answer given by nearly all Christians is “No!”, and then they’ll cite Matthew 5:27-28. However, if you’ve read my article on that passage, you’ll know that when properly understood, it’s not necessarily applicable. Perhaps some, but not directly. (We’ll see why later in the article). However, just because that passage isn’t necessarily applicable, doesn’t mean the Bible is silent. The Bible does actually speak to this issue quite decisively, but not in a verse most people cite. We’ll look at that verse soon, but first we’ll look at two others which aren’t necessarily applicable.
The first is Matthew 5:27-28, and the second is Job 31:1.
Is Matthew 5:27-28 applicable to Porn?
There are verses which clearly speak to the issue of porn, but this isn’t one of them. To see why, we’ll first look at the verse as it is usually translated:
Matthew 5:27-28 (NASB ’95)
27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’;
28 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.
However, there’s to this verse than that translation might indicate. It’s not badly translated or anything (the NASB ’95 is one of the two best Bible translations on the market) but there is more going on. I’ll give a brief summary here, but for full details/proof you’ll need to read my article on Matthew 5:27-28.
- In the Bible, “adultery” is a technical term which mans “a man having sex with another man’s wife”. If a married woman isn’t involved, it isn’t adultery. Period. Biblically, a married man who has sex with an unmarried woman commits the (very serious) sin of fornication, but not adultery. This is according to the Greek/Hebrew word definitions and the 100% consistent usage throughout the entire Bible.
- In Greek, the word for “wife” and the word for “woman” are the same word. They are identical, and only context tells you which is intended. Given the point above, “wife” seems contextually more appropriate since the topic is adultery, which requires a married woman by definition.
- The “looking” here is intentional in the Greek, not a mere glance.
- The word translated “lust” doesn’t primarily denote sexual desire. It means any strong desire for something, whether good or bad. Elsewhere, this word is used when quoting the 10th commandment about coveting. That’s important.
Putting that all together – and again, see my article for proof – you get a verse that should look something like this:
Matthew 5:27-28
27 You heard it was said: “You shall not have sex with another man’s wife.”
28 But I tell you; everyone who looks at a wife in order to covet her already had sex with the other man’s wife in his heart.
The issue here isn’t “lust” in the sense of inordinate sexual desire. The issue here is wanting to have/own/possess another man’s wife. God commanded Israel not to covet in the Mosaic Law, but didn’t place a penalty on it. Conversely, the biblical penalty for biblical adultery (a man having sex with another man’s wife) was death. In Matthew 5:27-28, Jesus said that a man who “merely” coveted his neighbor’s wife was as guilty as a man who actually had sex with her…
…and the penalty for that was death.
However, this verse doesn’t really clarify the issue of porn very much.
Why?
Because coveting means more than simply “to want”. Dennis Prager has an excellent video on coveting that explains this very well (~5 minutes long), and we also go over it in my article on Matthew 5:27-28. Again, the issue is coveting, not lust in this passage.
The best definition I’ve seen for coveting is this:
You are coveting when you desire something to the point that you would like to take it away from its rightful owner and own it yourself, regardless of if you actually do.
Even if you wouldn’t take it away from its rightful owner given the chance, it can still be coveting. You covet when you desire something enough that you want to take it away from its rightful owner and own it yourself. You don’t need to plan to do it, and maybe wouldn’t even do so given the chance. It can still be coveting if you ‘merely’ want to take it away from its rightful owner so you can own it.
That’s why porn isn’t necessarily covered by Matthew 5:27-28
To be sure, if you’re watching porn where the woman is married, then it might be applicable. However, if there’s no coveting – aka a desire to actually have/own/possess that woman – it gets less clear if it’s a sin. We’ll look at this more closely later in the article.
That’s why this verse doesn’t clarify the issue of porn as much as most people think it does.
There are other verses which do, but this isn’t it.
Is Job 31:1 applicable to Porn?
Here is the other verse that often comes up when porn is discussed.
Job 31:1
“I have made a covenant with my eyes; How then could I gaze at a virgin?
This clearly leans in one one direction (against porn) but the trouble is that it’s not a clear indictment. The reason that Job doesn’t gaze is because he made a “covenant with his eyes”. In those many emails I’ve received, some people say that he made an actual vow/covenant and so it’s only applicable to him.
It that the case?
Maybe.
If so, the Bible is clear that men should stand by their word:
Numbers 30:2
2 “If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
So is Job 31:1 about an actual vow of Job’s? If so, it’s only really applicable to him. (I’ve had some make that exact argument.)
Or perhaps this is poetic imagery about how none of us should ever “gaze” at a virgin, which is the typical application. But then again, I’ve had people argue that God chastises Job at the end of the book for his words, so we can ignore Job’s words because God corrected him for them. I’ve had people make that exact argument, and it’s not a bad argument. Not a great one either, but not a bad one.
You see the point.
I don’t like grounding doctrine/practice on verses which aren’t clear, and this verse isn’t as clear as I’d like. I would say it clearly leans in one direction, but “clearly leans” is different than “clearly says”. Fortunately, there is one verse that does clearly say. Because of that, I won’t bother with unclear verses because we have clear ones. We’ll look at those now.
Deuteronomy 24:1
I’ve literally never seen anyone bring up this verse in the porn debate, which is a shame because it’s the clearest verse on the topic, though indirectly.
Deuteronomy 24:1
1 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house
Many people take “indecency” to mean adultery as the reason for the divorce here. However that’s simply not possible because the biblical penalty for biblical adultery is death. (And remember that biblical adultery is a man having sex with another man’s wife. If a man has sex with an unmarried woman, it’s the {serious} sin of fornication, but it’s not adultery. )
Deuteronomy 22:22
22 “If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.
Leviticus 20:10
10 ‘If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.
(And by the way, the story of the woman caught in adultery in John 8 in near universally agreed to have been added to the Bible and not original. Further, including that story introduces a massive error to the Bible, thus it doesn’t belong. Full details in my article on the Pericope Adulterae.)
As we just saw, biblical adultery (a man having sex with another man’s wife) was punished by death according to God’s command. But if a divorce happens, then she’s clearly not being put to death for her crimes.
Therefore, this verse is not talking about adultery.
So what is it talking about, and how does it relate to porn? Well, the word translated “indecency” in Deuteronomy 24:1 is the Hebrew word “עֶרְוָה” (ervah). It primarily means “nakedness” in the sense of lewd exposure, as borne out by it’s definition.
nakedness, shame, uncleanness
From arah; nudity, literally (especially the pudenda) or figuratively (disgrace, blemish) — nakedness, shame, unclean(-ness).
And again from another one:
1 pudenda, of man ׳רָאָה ע implying shameful exposure Genesis 9:22,23 (J); mostly of woman: figurative of Jerusalem (with רָאָה) Lamentations 1:3; Ezekiel 16:37; usually with ׃ נלה literal ׳תִּגָּלֶה ע i.e. be exposed to view
2 עֶרְוַת דָּבָר nakedness of a thing, i.e. probably indecency, improper behavior Deuteronomy 23:15; Deuteronomy 24:1 (see Dr).
You might’ve noticed the word “pudenda” in both definitions. I had to look up the definition as I’d never heard the word before. Here’s the definition of pudenda from Merriam-Webster:
pu·den·dum | \ pyu̇-ˈden-dəm \
plural: pudenda\ pyu̇-ˈden-də \the external genital organs of a human being and especially of a woman — usually used in plural
The Hebrew word in Deuteronomy 24:1 clearly involves lewd exposure. Pudenda refers to the external sexual organs; any external sexual organs on men or women, including the ones not between a woman’s legs; i.e. her breasts. Again, the Hebrew word clearly refers to indecent exposure of these sexual organs, including breasts. Such (intentional) indecent exposure of any of these organs is grounds for divorce according to Deuteronomy 24:1.
Any of them.
I think you see how this relates to porn.
A wife lewdly exposing her sexual organs – either privately or publicly – was a legitimate cause for her husband to divorce her. This quite clearly makes lewd/indecent exposure a sin. Further, it’s not only a sin, but a very serious sin because it was serious enough that man could divorce a wife for committing the sin of lewd/indecent exposure.
By definition, porn includes lewd/indecent exposure.
Therefore, porn is sinful by definition. Not necessarily because of lust or coveting (though it could be because of that too) but because by definition porn requires something that is sinful: lewd/indecent exposure.
That is a clear verse.
The verdict is in, and unsurprisingly porn isn’t something that God allows Christians to watch.
(Note: this also applies to other situations with lewd/indecent exposure too, like a strip club.)
What about ‘merely’ watching
I can almost hear someone objecting like this: “But I’m not exposing myself, just watching someone else exposing themselves. Is it sill a sin?“ If that’s an argument you’re considering, think about it a little more. Or better yet, read that argument aloud. Hear how it sounds.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
…
…
Is that really an argument you want to make?
Just in case it is, we’ll look at what the Bible has to say about it. Remember that the Hebrew word used in Deuteronomy 24:1 is “עֶרְוָה” (ervah), and that it means to lewdly/shamefully expose the sexual organs. So here’s what the Bible says about seeing someone else’s “ervah”.
(Note: Ham is Noah’s youngest son)
Genesis 9:20
20 Then Noah began farming and planted a vineyard.
21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and uncovered himself inside his tent.
22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness (ervah) of his father, and told his two brothers outside.
23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it upon both their shoulders and walked backward and covered the nakedness (ervah) of their father; and their faces were turned away, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness (ervah).
24 When Noah awoke from his wine, he knew what his youngest son had done to him.
Notice the phrase “had done to him”. Clearly what Ham did was wrong, yet he did nothing more than simply see Noah’s “nakedness” (ervah) and tell his brothers about it. However, the brothers took pains to make sure they didn’t see any “nakedness” (ervah). The pains they take is clearly commendable from the context.
This is quite clear.
We aren’t supposed to go looking at other people’s “ervah” (nakedness/external sexual organs) unless we’re married to them.
Noah actually pronounced a curse in retaliation because of this incident, while he blessed the two brothers who covered him up without looking. So no, it’s not acceptable to view pudendum/ervah (external sexual organs) for your own sexual gratification.
Porn includes viewing exposed pudendum by definition. So no, God doesn’t allow Christians to look at porn.
The scripture is clear on this point.
One important thing before we move on: the word ervah specifically focuses on lewd/indecent exposure. This likely wouldn’t apply in medical situations/doctors because the exposure isn’t lewd/indecent. (There are likely other times/situations when such exposure would be acceptable as well, especially when not in mixed company, but we won’t get into that here because it’s off topic.)
Next, we’ll look at masturbation.
Masturbation
There are two primary verses that some Christians use to say that masturbation is wrong; one in Leviticus and one in Genesis. We’ll start with the one in Leviticus.
Leviticus 15:16
We’ll also look at the following verse for context.
Leviticus 15:16-17
16 ‘Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening.
17 As for any garment or any leather on which there is seminal emission, it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.
This has traditionally been applied to nocturnal emissions (aka “wet dreams”, where a man ejaculates while asleep), which is probably why it mentions “any garments or any leather”. (The leather is likely a bed mat).
It should be noted that being ceremonially “unclean” was not a sin.
Sometimes people will quote the verse above to say that masturbation is a sin/wrong because it made a man ceremonially unclean. That’s not what this verse is saying, which is obvious if you read the following verses for context.
Leviticus 15:16-19
16 ‘Now if a man has a seminal emission, he shall bathe all his body in water and be unclean until evening.
17 As for any garment or any leather on which there is seminal emission, it shall be washed with water and be unclean until evening.
18 ‘If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.
19 ‘When a woman has a discharge, if her discharge in her body is blood, she shall continue in her menstrual impurity for seven days; and whoever touches her shall be unclean until evening.
So, having sex with your wife also made you “unclean until evening”. However, God requires husbands to have sex with their wives – which made both of them unclean – so being unclean can’t be a sin. This is repeated in both the Mosaic Law and the New Testament.
Exodus 21:10-11
10 If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights.
11 And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.
In the Mosaic Law, a man refusing to have sex with a wife (on an ongoing basis) was cause for her to divorce him. God also tells husbands and wives that they must have sex through Paul.
1 Corinthians 7:2-5
2. But because of temptation to fornication, let each man have the wife to himself, and let each wife have her husband.
3. Let the husband give what is owed to the wife, and likewise also the wife to the husband.
4. The wife doesn’t have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise also, the husband doesn’t have authority over his own body, but the wife does.
5. Don’t defraud each other, except by agreement for a suitable time, that you might devote yourselves to prayer; and then be together again so Satan won’t tempt you through your lack of self-control.
Since God requires husbands and wives to have sex, and since having sex made them “unclean until evening”, then being ceremonially unclean can’t be a sin because God commanded that they do something which made them unclean. Driving the point home, a woman menstruating made her unclean too, so it’s obviously not a sin.
Remember that these were laws about ceremonial cleanliness, not morality.
There’s a difference.
Now, we’ll look at the other verse.
Genesis 38:9
This is the second verse that some use to say that masturbation is wrong. However, the couple involved were married and having actual penetrative sex… so it’s not applicable.
Genesis 38:6-10
6 Now Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.
7 But Er, Judah’s firstborn, was evil in the sight of the LORD, so the LORD took his life.
8 Then Judah said to Onan, “Go in to your brother’s wife, and perform your duty as a brother-in-law to her, and raise up offspring for your brother.”
9 Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother’s wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother.
10 But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the LORD; so He took his life also.
The argument that some people make is that “wasting his seed on the ground” refers to masturbation, which (in some Christian’s eyes) is a serious sin, and that’s why God killed him. However, that’s blatantly contradicted by the text.
Notice the phrase “he went in to his brother’s wife”.
That’s an obvious, clear, explicit statement referring to penetrative sexual intercourse. It’s hard to get clearer than “he went in to her” to describe sex. Onan was having actual sex with Tamar, he just pulled out in order to avoid impregnating her. The sin here had to do with levirate marriage and not taking care of his brother’s widow by giving her children (after marrying her; see the law on levirate marriage in Deuteronomy 25:5-6, which made this ancient custom law).
This particular verse isn’t about masturbation.
Period.
Adding to God’s prohibitions?
Now, there’s a guiding light that we should always hold sacrosanct when we read the Bible, and it’s this: We should never say “thus saith the lord” unless God actually said it. Ever. Period. This applies to many things, and one of them is what we call sin.
If God hasn’t called something a sin -either directly or indirectly – then we should be very careful about calling it a sin. I’d argue we shouldn’t call it a sin, because that’s putting words in God’s mouth, adding to His words which He commanded us not to do. I recommend you read the first heading on my article What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why? for more on this point. In that article, I go to great lengths show why we shouldn’t add to Gods commands, which includes adding to His prohibitions.
(BTW, I can make a powerful argument that Christians adding to God’s prohibitions – that is, Christians saying we shouldn’t do something that God allows – is currently causing the moral decline of the West… but I digress. )
I’ll quote just one verse about not adding to or taking away from to His words, but there are more.
Deuteronomy 4:2
2 “You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you
So if God hasn’t said “you shouldn’t _____” then we aren’t allow to say “God says you shouldn’t _____“. He directly commanded us not to do that. So make sure you have solid chapter and verse before saying that God requires or forbids something.
That’s important…
…and it applies to masturbation.
We’ve just looked at all the verses that some Christians use to say that masturbation is wrong. However, none of them are about masturbation so they certainly don’t say it’s wrong. Since the Bible never says it’s wrong – explicitly or implicitly – then we can’t claim it’s wrong without adding to God’s commands, which is a sin.
Therefore, masturbation is not wrong in and of itself.
However…
It takes some kind of stimulation to masturbate, and the source of that stimulation could be wrong. Not saying it always is, just that it could be.
Since we’ve already ruled out porn and looking at naked/scantily clad women (unless you’re married to them), the next obvious place to look is the mind itself through fantasy.
We’ll look at that next.
(Note: masturbation comes with a warning label if done too often, but it’s not necessarily unhealthy otherwise. We’ll look at this at the end, but it’s rather important to know the side effects of masturbating – and how to avoid them – if you plan to masturbate. We’ll look at that near the conclusion of this article.)
Fantasy
To be clear: we’re not talking about “high fantasy” stories with dragons, magic, and other mythological elements. (Like the Chronicles of Narnia or Lord of the Rings.) We’re talking about a person intentionally imagining a sexual situation for any reason, including for the purpose of masturbating. But before we can talk about that, we’ll to talk about non-sexual fantasy for context.
Is non-sexual fantasy bad/wrong?
We’ll start with non-sexual fantasy because it will provide a framework to talk about sexual fantasy. There’s one verse that might seem to indicate it’s wrong, but only in certain (poor) translations.
Proverbs 28:19 (NIV)
Those who work their land will have abundant food, but those who chase fantasies will have their fill of poverty.
In my article What’s the Best Bible Translation? And More Importantly, Why?, we talk about the importance of not changing God’s words. Sadly, the NIV translators simply don’t care about accurately translating God’s words (proof in the article on Bible translations). The word they translate “fantasies” simply doesn’t mean “fantasies” at all. (It’s the NIV though, so who’s really surprised?)
Here’s the same verse in a few other translations.
Proverbs 28:19
ESV: Whoever works his land will have plenty of bread, but he who follows worthless pursuits will have plenty of poverty
NKJV: He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, But he who follows frivolity will have poverty enough
NASB ’95: He who tills his land will have plenty of food, But he who follows empty pursuits will have poverty in plenty
(Note: please don’t consider my quoting the ESV to be an endorsement of that {poor} translation. It intentionally mistranslates quite often and is quite sneaky about it too, so most people don’t know; details in my article on Bible translations.)
The Hebrew word highlighted in red is “רֵיק” (req, pronounced “rake”) and it primarily means “empty, idle, worthless, vain“. Notice that “fantasy” is not among the definitions. Again though, the NIV mistranslating a verse/passage is almost more normal than not.
*Shakes head* “Oh NIV, what will I do with you?”
…but I digress.
Back to the topic of fantasy, and not my incredible frustration with bad Bible translations (ESV, NIV, NLT, etc) giving people bad theology…
The Bible does actually lightly touch the topic of fantasy; sort of.
Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy — meditate on these things.
Notice the word “meditate”. To meditate on something is much more than to merely think about it. It means to give something serious, deep thought. The Greek word translated “meditate” here is “λογίζομαι” (logizomai) and it means:
3049 logízomai (the root of the English terms “logic, logical“) – properly, compute, “take into account”; reckon (come to a “bottom-line”), i.e. reason to a logical conclusion (decision).
Or in Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
- (rationes conferre) to reckon, count, compute, calculate, count over; hence,
- (in animo rationes conferre) to reckon inwardly, count up or weigh the reasons, to deliberate
- by reckoning up all the reasons to gather or infer; i. e., a. to consider, take account, weigh, meditate on: τί, a thing, with a view to obtaining it, Philippians 4:8;
Notice the phrase: “with a view toward obtaining it”.
Hmm…
Now, that sounds like you’re supposed to think about good things, and then think about how to be/get those good things. Doesn’t that sound like fantasy, or at least “fantasy adjacent”? It certainly seems to be the case. Further, it makes a lot of sense.
Man is a visual creature.
We “fantasize” about things literally every day. Engineers have to imagine/fantasize how the finished product would work to design it. Artists have to “fantasize” about the finished product to paint it. Writers need to imagine/fantasize the world in order to accurately describe it. Gardeners – especially landscapers – need to imagine how the finished product will look before they starts. Architects need to imagine the final product before they can draw up plans.
Need I go on?
Consider, how many verses you’ve heard where we’re told to “set our eyes” on God, Jesus, heavenly things, etc.?
Fantasy is nothing more than the result of our imagination, and I see literally no place in scripture where that’s a bad thing… provided you fantasize about moral things. Philippians says to meditate on things that are true, noble, just, pure, lovely, “of good report” and “if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy”.
So good things are 100% fine to imagine/fantasize about.
You wouldn’t tell a kid to stop imagining while he plays games, why would you do the same to an adult? These fantasies can be extremely productive too, propelling us to seek things we wouldn’t have reach for if we hadn’t dreamed, imagined fantasized about them.
There’s another example of fantasy that’s important and had a profound impact on me growing up: superheroes.
I loved Spider-Man and imagined fantasized that I was him all the time. My favorite action figure was a crazy-articulated Spider-man that could bend like no action figure I’ve seen before nor since. I would pretend I had web-shooters, I read (almost) every issue of the Amazing Spider-Man. I spent a lot of time imagining fantasizing that I was him… including his character.
I wanted to be like Spider-Man in every way, so I imitated his character so much. His catchphrase was important: “With great power comes great responsibility“, and the fact that he always tried to do the right thing, even – or perhaps especially – when it was hard That had a profound impact on me growing up for the good. I fantasized about being like Spider-Man, which made me a better man. I fantasized about what Spider-Man would do when I was in a tough spot or when I was tempted to do something wrong, and that fantasy made me better.
Let me say that again:
That fantasy actually, truly, and deeply made me into a a better man.
I’m not alone in this either. One of my favorite YouTube channels has a video about this, though He-Man was the superhero who impacted him the same way. He talks about this at length and it’s well worth the ~35 minutes. This ability of fantasy to instill the desire for morality (especially in young boys) is the reason we’ve had mythology forever. Boys especially need someone they can emulate; a masculine hero who does the right thing when it’s hard so they can learn what that looks like.
Why else would we still be retelling the story of the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae thousands of years later?
It’s because we want our sons to emulate these heroic acts when they are confronted with hard choices. We want them to be better, so we give them a (super)hero they can emulate and look up to. We use the fantasy of being a hero to teach moral lessons to boys about how to be men; lessons that will stick with them for a lifetime.
(Non-sexual) fantasy can actually be one of the most powerful forces for good in the world. It can be used to inspire and uplift and instill timeless values in a way few other things can.
The only real limitation God gave us on imagination/fantasy is to do so about good/moral things. That’s a pretty great limitation when you consider where immoral fantasies can lead.
Now that we’ve established that non-sexual fantasy is fine, we’ll look at sexual fantasy.
Is sexual fantasy bad/wrong?
I’m going to start this section with a suggestion: please read the entire book of Song of Solomon. Here’s a link where you can read the whole thing. It’s not too long, being less than half the length of this article.
I’ll wait.
No really, I will.
…
…
Back? Good; here’s the pop-quiz:
- Did you notice that the words “God” and “Lord” both don’t appear even a single time? Yes, there’s a book of the Bible which doesn’t even mention God once. No joke.
- Did you catch the part where Solomon goes on for some length describing a naked woman?
- Did you catch the part where she eats – and likes the taste of – his semen?
- Did you catch the parts – plural (as in more than one) – where she wants him to perform oral sex on her?
No?
Okay, I don’t blame you for missing the last two… but they’re in there. (Song 2:3, and then 4:16 & 8:2 respectively; though a bit of cultural context makes it clearer). It’s enough to make anyone blush… and God inspired it.
Let me repeat that:
God inspired a book about love/sex and put it in the Bible even though He isn’t mentioned even once in that book.
Think about that for a moment.
Really think about it.
Then consider that He inspired a book which spends a lot of time waxing eloquently about love, sex, a naked woman, and other erotic things. In fact, that’s the topic of the whole book. So if you were to classify the Song of Solomon, do you know what genre it would be?
Erotic poetry.
No seriously; I’m not kidding.
(I’d also accept “erotic fiction” or “erotic autobiography” depending on if you believe Solomon ‘merely’ composed a poem like David did in Psalms or recorded real events; I loosely hold to the former idea and so would called it “erotic fiction/poetry”.)
God does not have a problem with moral/ethical sex.
Now I want to be clear. This only applies to moral/ethical sex. There’s a very real sense where the Song of Solomon is almost designed to create sexual fantasy. I’m not saying that’s why it was written, but it’s a near unavoidable result of reading it… and God Himself inspired the book.
We’ll come back to that in a moment.
For now, let’s look at a related pair of verses that might make things a bit clearer.
Honorable things
Notice the highlight words in the following two verses, and especially how they might fit together. (Admittedly, I’m mixing translations to make the point clearer. The NASB has “is to be held in honor” instead of “honorable” in Hebrews 13:4.)
Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV)
Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.
Now, notice what God says we should meditate on in the following verse…
Philippians 4:8 (NASB ’95)
Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.
The Greek word translated “dwell” in the NASB is the same one translated “meditate” in the NKJV, and we already looked at it. Now bearing that in mind, consider this:
Remember how we said that fantasizing about noble things is a good thing? well, Sex inside of marriage is a noble/honorable thing.
It is.
That’s clear from scripture, especially the Song of Solomon.
Now, I’m not saying these two verses (when combined) are saying Christians should fantasize about having sex.
I’m not saying that at all.
However, I do see a clear indication in scripture with these two verses that fantasy is permissible… provided you follow the example of Song of Solomon.
What example?
Song of Solomon only talks about moral/ethical sex inside of marriage. Remember too that Philippians has a similar pattern, i.e. whatever is honorable, right, pure, lovely, good repute, anything of excellence, anything worthy of praise. Sex inside of marriage is all of those things. Sex outside of marriage is none of those things.
None of them.
I have a whole article on Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong. In one place, it’s called a “shameful, stupid, wicked, sin/crime”. (Details in the article.) In no case whatsoever can fantasizing about an immoral sexual act ever be considered a good thing.
Period.
But what about fantasizing about moral/ethical sex?
It depends. There’s two broad classes of fantasy that can occur. The first type is fantasizing about a real/specific woman. The second type is fantasizing about a non-real/imagined woman who you conjure with your own imagination. Because these two are separate types, we’ll handle them separately.
Fantasy about a real/specific woman
If you’ll remember back a few thousand words to the beginning of this article, we talked a bit about coveting. If you’ll remember, we had this definition:
You are coveting when you desire something to the point that you would like to take it away from its rightful owner to own it yourself, regardless of if you actually do.
That includes if you would refuse the opportunity if it was presented to you. For example, if you coveted your neighbor’s wife and she started making advances on you and you turned her down for fear of being found out, you could still covet her. Even if you don’t commit adultery with her – even if you turn her down – you can still covet if the desire is there.
It doesn’t matter if you do something; the desire to take something from its rightful owner is enough to be coveting, even if you don’t do anything.
You can still covet your neighbors wife even if you would “never in a million years” actually have sex with her.
Now, in the case of fantasizing about a real/specific woman, this is nearly coveting by definition. You don’t have the right to access a woman sexually unless you’ve married her. If you want the right to access her sexually, you must marry her. If you disagree, please see my article: Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong.
Now, if you have married her, then you can’t “covet” what you already have: the right to access her sexually. Thus – keeping Hebrews and Philippians in mind – I see no reason whatsoever that a married man can’t fantasize about his wife. (and vice-verse)
No reason at all.
Now, the sexual fantasies must still be moral even when they’re about your wife.
For example, the Bible clearly condemns anal sex as immoral/wrong. (In Romans 1:26 when properly translated; please see my article on homosexuality, as it contains an in-depth treatment of this verse.) Thus, fantasizing about any kind of anal sex – even anal sex with your wife – is wrong in and of itself. It’s wrong because the Bible says anal sex is wrong, so no fantasizing about it.
Period.
However, it’s perfectly fine to fantasize about doing any moral sexual act with your wife (which includes oral sex; see the Song of Solomon above).
However, fantasizing about any woman to whom you aren’t married very nearly becomes coveting by definition.
“Yes, but what about a fiancée?”
We need to draw a distinction between a “fiancée” and a “betrothed woman” before we can properly understand the Bible on this. They are very different, and not understanding the difference can lead you into error. This is especially true when you look at books like Song of Solomon.
A modern fiancée has said that she would marry a man, but there is no binding agreement. Either can break off the engagement at any point without repercussion. The man has no legal, moral, or biblical claim on her whatsoever.
However, a betrothed woman is completely different. For starters, the woman almost certainly didn’t choose her groom; her father did. A woman becomes betrothed when the groom pays a “bride-price” to her father, literally buying the daughter to be his wife. The daughter had no say in this other than perhaps trying to convince her father of a certain man (think like Jane Austen’s Pride & Prejudice). In fact, she could be married against her will and her consent was not required for the marriage to take place.
Please note, one of the two Hebrew ways to say “husband” is the Hebrew word “בַּעַל” (baal, not to be confused with the pagan god “Ba’al“, which doesn’t have the apostrophe in most modern bibles). It means:
Brown-Driver-Briggs (Lexicon)
I. בַּעַל 166 noun masculine: owner, lord
Strong’s Exhaustinve Concordance:
From ba’al; a master; hence, a husband, or (figuratively) owner
I bet you’ve never heard that while studying Proverbs 31!
The reason that “husband” and “owner” were synonymous was because a man was required to purchase his wife from her father. He literally “owned” her. In fact, a betrothal was an actual marriage that required a divorce to break. Because the groom had paid for her, she was considered his wife even though the actual wedding hadn’t happened yet. A betrothed woman was – for all intents and purposes – the man’s wife in a legal sense. This is made clear because the penalty for sleeping with another man’s betrothed woman was the same as sleep with another man’s wife: death.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
23 “If there is a girl who is a virgin betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her,
24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. Thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Notice, the Bible calls a betrothed woman a wife. In a legal sense, betrothal = marriage.
Therefore, you could make a reasonable argument that since he owned/married her, he could rightfully fantasize about her like he would a wife… because she technically already was his wife. Parts of Song of Solomon could be read as sexual fantasy before marriage, but remember – in that culture – he would’ve already paid the bride price for her. Therefore, she was already his betrothed/wife.
It’s not this way with a modern fiancée.
Because of this ownership component, anything the Bible says about a betrothed woman is NOT applicable to a modern fiancée.
Not at all.
There’s no ownership component and no marriage, so fantasizing about your fiancée is no different whatsoever than fantasizing about any other unmarried woman.
And being no different, it’s almost coveting by definition.
In fact, fantasizing about any real woman whatsoever – if you haven’t married her – is slipping into dangerous territory, even if you are fantasizing about (for example) your wedding night with her.
I can’t absolutely, 100%, “for sure” say it’s a sin because the Bible doesn’t speak directly to the topic. However, I find it hard to believe that you could fantasize about a real woman – especially one you personally know – and not covet her. After all you would be fantasizing about “having” her in the Biblical sense, as in 1 Corinthians 7:
1 Corinthians 7:2
2. But because of temptation to fornication, let each man have the wife to himself, and let each wife have her husband.
This concept of “having” is why I say it’s dangerous territory. A man would be fantasizing about “having” her while at the same time saying he’s not fantasizing about “having” her. Is that possible?
I doubt it.
Again, it seems virtually impossible to fantasize about “having” a real woman (sexually) without also fantasizing about “having” her (coveting).
You see the problem.
It’s technically possible I suppose, but certainly not something I’d recommend.
Fantasy about a non-real/imagined woman
The Bible says nothing about this. Nothing at all, and there’s definitely no prohibition. Because of that, everything we said earlier about not adding to God’s commands applies. Don’t add to His commands, which include His prohibitions.
Period.
Further, you can’t “covet” a figment of your imagination because it either (a) doesn’t exist, or (b) if you want to say it does exist, then it exists in your own head and thus is already yours. Therefore, it can’t be coveting because it either doesn’t exist or you already own it.
I don’t see a problem with fantasizing about a non-real/imagined woman. I simply don’t. I don’t see a scriptural argument for prohibiting a man from fantasizing about having (moral/ethical) sex with a non-real woman/wife he’s imagined and masturbating to that fantasy.
Remember the Song of Solomon.
It’s essentially an erotic poem and it’s in the Bible. Frankly, I don’t see how you can read that book and not have some of those images float into your head. I don’t see how it’s possible. (Unless you try to make it about Christ and the church – which I’ve seen some men do – and then it gets pretty disturbing.) You don’t have to like the fact that God included an long erotic poem in the Bible, but He did.
Whatever is honorable, meditate on these things, and sex inside marriage is honorable.
So if you have a strong sex drive but aren’t married, there’s a Biblical command for how to deal with that: get married. But until you find a wife, a little masturbation with a fantasy about some non-real/imagined future wife might help ease the tension and provide some relief.
I see zero problem with that Biblically
None.
Now, a slight warning about masturbation
It’s not wrong, and it’s not even unhealthy… unless you over-indulge. Let me explain. The follow quotes are all from this article about the potential ill-effects of over masturbating.
It is easy to assume that your brain if effected the same way during masturbation as with intercourse simply because the end result is the same. Not true. Several studies have proven that your brain reacts differently when having sex than it does when you masturbate. For instance, in a study conducted by Dr. Stuart Brody and Tillman Kruger found that certain hormones are released in as much as 400% higher concentrations during sex as they are when you masturbate. In this particular study, they measured the amounts of prolactin which is triggered by another hormone: oxytocin.
The article then goes on to say that oxytocin provides a moderating effect to the hormone that makes sex pleasurable: dopamine, then says this:
So basically, although masturbation provides a sense of pleasure and release that floods our brains with dopamine, it doesn’t produce as much of the hormone that counters dopamine.
…
Our brains can only produce so much dopamine at a time, so if you are using it all up on feeding into your brain’s need for pleasure with masturbation it isn’t being released at any other time. Without dopamine releases in other aspects of your life, you begin to lose motivation to do even the simplest things like spend time with friends or engage in activity that used to make you happy.
Now, this doesn’t mean you need to stop masturbating completely. The article I quoted from doesn’t even say that. In fact, they end it with this: (though it should be noted that sex has the same benefits with no downsides.)
In the end, I do think there is a medical benefit to regular masturbation.
There is plenty of research that supports that notion. But just like anything else in life that we get pleasure from, we can sometimes go overboard with the need for that pleasure. Moderation becomes the key to maintaining that balance between what is good for us, and what can ruin our lives.
So while there’s nothing morally wrong with masturbation, indulging too much can have negatives effects. From both personal experience and research, it seems like once or twice a week is the realistic maximum before side effects appear. (If you’re married, sex has all the same benefits with none of the downsides, so feel free to indulge as often as you like.)
Here’s where the idea that “sex is dirty” came from:
One final note.
Christians tend to have a “puritanical” view of sex that somehow makes sex “dirty” in many Christian’s minds. That mindset is patently unbiblical. God’s first three commands to mankind were to “be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth“. That means children, which requires sex. There’s a very real sense where God’s first three commands to mankind boil down to “have lots of sex, so you make lots of babies.”
I’d love to double the length of this article explaining where this ungodly view that “sex is dirty” comes from, but that’s not why you’re here. So I’m going to give a super short explanation with zero proof and you can do the research yourself if you’re interested.
Basically, it all comes from Greco-Roman ideas about purity.
They had this idea that a woman never having sex and never getting married was somehow super pure, and eventually that idea carried over to men also. These ideas were typified by Gnosticism, and especially the ascetic forms of Gnosticism which said anything that you enjoyed physically – including food, drink, and especially sex – was bad by nature. This is part of why they forbade marriage and certain (enjoyable) foods. Paul alludes to this in 1 Timothy 4:3:
1 Timothy 4:3
men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.
When Christianity spread across the Greco-Roman world, the converts took these ideas with them into the church. (They definitely didn’t get them from the Jews, who were polygamous from Abraham until ~thousand years after Christ.)
Before long, you had the church saying that since sex wasn’t as holy as being a virgin, only unmarried men could become elders/priests/pastors, (in direct contradiction to the requirements for elders in 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1). This caused a negative feedback loop because eventually all the “holy men” never had sex, and thus virginity became synonymous with holiness. Once virginity became synonymous with holiness, then having sex – even when married – sort of automatically became the opposite of holy in many people’s minds.
That’s an unbiblical and unchristian.
God loves moral/ethical sex inside of marriage. In fact, He commanded that married couples not stop having sex except temporarily to fast and pray, and then to have sex again. Sex isn’t “dirty”; sex is great. In fact, it’s awesome and was created by God for our enjoyment. So enjoy it, as long as you do so ethically/morally.
Conclusion
Matthew 5:27-28 isn’t as applicable to porn the way most people think, though it does have some application as far as coveting is concerned. Job 31:1 is better, but still not clear.
In Deuteronomy 24:1, a woman exposing her “pudendum” or “external sexual organs” was cause for her husband to divorce her, meaning it was a serious sin. Those who “merely” (intentionally) view the pudendum are guilty of sin too, as the passage in Genesis with Noah and his sons proves. Porn includes the viewing of another persons pudendum by definition.
Therefore, porn is wrong.
Masturbation isn’t mentioned directly or indirectly anywhere in the Bible, and certainly isn’t prohibited. Therefore, God never said that it’s wrong. Since God never said that it’s wrong, any Christian who says masturbation is wrong is (unknowingly) sinning. However, doing it too often can cause problems. Once or twice a week is probably safe, more is less so.
So masturbation isn’t wrong, but don’t over-indulge for health reasons.
Fantasy is trickier and stickier. The Bible seems to encourage fantasy about moral/ethical/honorable things in the non-sexual arena. I don’t see why this wouldn’t extend to the sexual arena as well, as long as you are fantasizing about moral sexual acts (which doesn’t include anal sex).
Fantasy in general is fine if you fantasize about moral/ethical things.
Fantasizing about a real/specific woman get into dangerous territory very fast. It instantly runs right up the point of coveting, because it seems impossible to fantasize about “having” a woman (in the biblical sense) without fantasizing about “having” a woman. I’m not saying it is impossible, but it seems that way.
So, fantasy about a specific/real woman = very dangerous = almost indistinguishable from coveting = do not recommend. (unless you’re married and she’s your wife)
Fantasizing about a non-real/imagined woman is far simpler, and there’s appears to be no problem with that whatsoever. It could even inspire an unmarried man to seek a wife, and as proverbs 18:22 says: “He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.”
So, fantasy about a non-real/imaginary woman is fine, if you fantasize about moral/ethical things.
If you are an unmarried man who wants sex, seek a wife Until you find one, you can fantasize about sex with an imagined/imaginary wife in the future, and masturbate to that fantasy… just don’t over indulge.
Okay, 8k+ words later, I hope that clears things up. 🙂
I don’t think you can draw a universal principle from Genesis 9:20. That is a case of voyeurism that was incest-adjacent if not actual incest as well as disrespecting one’s father (both by Ham spying on him naked and by telling his brothers). A man looking at a naked woman who is not a family member and has voluntarily allowed herself to be seen is a very different matter.
As for Deuteronomy 24:1, I agree that you probably shouldn’t marry someone who has appeared in porn or anything like it. On the other hand, we have examples of men marrying former prostitutes like Rahab. I think the verse is about a situation where the woman’s husband finds out after the marriage that she had previously done those things. If a man entered the marriage already knowing about it then I don’t think that gives him an excuse to back out.
There are going to be women out there who will appear in porn or become strippers or whatever. They definitely aren’t marriage material, unless they really turn their lives around and find a man willing to look past her old life. But what difference does it make to look at them?
Biblically speaking, a woman who is not under the authority of her father or a husband was considered a zanah, a prostitute. Having sex for money was an expected part of being a zanah but was not by itself necessary for being one. A woman who had sex or exposed herself was a zanah even if no money changed hands. Being a zanah was considered shameful in Ancient Israel but never actually illegal. Fathers selling their daughters into prostitution was forbidden as was temple prostitution. But simple prostitution was not illegal. The shame of being a prostitute was the punishment. Notice when the two prostitutes came to Solomon to judge their dispute over a baby he did not immediately throw them in jail. Similarly when Jesus associated with prostitutes, the religious leaders complained about it and mentioned tax collectors in the same breath. Both professions being legal, but very disreputable.
Even though being a prostitute was shameful, there is no mention of it being shameful or sinful for a man to use her services. There’s a reason why being a prostitute was shameful but never illegal and that is because it was seen as a necessary institution albeit a disreputable one. It’s a dirty job but someone’s got to do it, as the saying goes. Under the same logic Augustine and Aquinas both argued that prostitution should be legal (even though it was a sin) because it was better than the alternative. Better to have a sewer than for the filth to wash into the streets, to slightly paraphrase them.
As for porn, the ancient world was full of images that would be considered pornographic. There are many surviving examples of statues, frescoes, mosaics, and even coins which depict explicit sex acts. But the Bible has nothing to say about those images. Not a word of condemnation. Early Christians would have passed by pornographic art on a daily basis and even have done their daily commerce with pornographic coins.
If you say that masturbation isn’t a sin but only if there are no visual aids involved then you’re missing the point. That’s just not how male sexuality works.
You said:
That’s possible, but not explicitly stated. It literally didn’t even occur to me that might be a possibility until I read your comment. Contextually I don’t think that makes a lot of sense. Also, you can make the case that prostitution shouldn’t be illegal, but you can’t make the case that it’s not immoral. Hebrews 12:4 comes to mind, and 1 Thess 4:3.
Now, as to images that aren’t of a specific person such as coins and artwork, I carefully avoided talking about them. I commented on porn/indecent exposure, masturbation, and fantasy; nothing else. Please don’t read more into the article than is present.
Sorry for the double post, but this is something important to add. Have you ever tried picturing an imaginary person in your head? I can almost guarantee that they were either heavily based on a real person you’ve seen with some slight alterations or they were an amalgam of multiple real people you’ve seen. Accordingly, I think that making a distinction between fantasizing about real or imaginary people is just splitting hairs.
You said that seeing other people’s sexual organs exposed is wrong, so what if it were their arm hand face feet or their body but not exposing their sexual organs?
I’m not sure what your question is. Obviously it’s okay to have other parts of the body uncovered, so I’m not sure what you’re getting at…
If a man marries a woman and he knows going in that she was a former prostitute or had been in porn then I don’t think it makes sense for him to be allowed to later use that as grounds for divorce. Sorry pal, but you knew about that from the start and you still agreed to marry her. You got what you ordered. This would be similar to the Deuteronomy 22 where a man claims that his wife wasn’t a virgin when he married herand then she had to show the proof in the form of a bloody sheet. Obviously, if a man was marrying a widow or a divorcee, or a former prostitute he would have known before the marriage happened that she wasn’t a virgin. The Deuteronomy 22 case deals with deception. If she wasn’t a virgin and she deceived her husband about that then the passage explains what is to be done. If a man knowingly married a widow and then complained about her not being a virgin and wanted a divorce then I would expect the response from the local magistrates to be “You knew that already when you married her. If that was going to be such a sticking point then why did you go through with the marriage?”
what if the women isn’t married?
The Bible may not speak on “fantasizing” non sexually, but it does speak against not putting things before Him. He says not to have idols in ones heart and if one is truly devoted to Him, He will be what one thinks about all the time. Our all in life is to take up our cross, deny ourselves, and follow Him. Maybe we should look to Uriah as an example. Loyal to the point of handing over his own death warrant. Think of it. Because he knew that a battle was taking place (are we not in a battle?) he said “far be it from me to go to my house and lie with my wife while the battle rages (paraphrasing 2 Samuel 11:11)
2Sa 11:11 Uriah said to David, “The ark and Israel and Judah dwell in booths, and my lord Joab and the servants of my lord are camping in the open field. Shall I then go to my house, to eat and to drink and to lie with my wife? As you live, and as your soul lives, I will not do this thing.”
Another thing to consider. Scripture states that out of the abundance of ones heart the mouth speaks, (Luke 6:45) likewise, out of the abundance of ones heart, the mind meditates. That was in reference to justification given regarding fantasy. Let us not forget that He saved us and gave us a mission, to expand the Kingdom. To make disciples and do His will. We can’t do that when we are selfish at heart. I read the following in an article from pure life ministries and it made valid points that I know all too well because I used to be one that created homemade porn and had a following of men that I dealt with daily who were enslaved to sexual pleasure to the point that they would pay their last dollar for something fresh that they had never seen, they had wives but selfishly sought their own pleasure, spending them both into the poor house in the process. There is nothing Holy, Noble or Godly about masturbating. Did Jesus do it you reckon? I don’t think so. But many a man and woman still tries to justify it because it feels good to them. I see it all the time because this industry was what the Lord delivered me from, I praise His sweet Holy Name :
“Without exception, every man in sexual addiction is a “taker.” Each one has come to a place where he looks at life and people with an attitude of “what’s in it for me.” In fact, this could easily define what lust is, seeking pleasure for self at the expense of others. This is why masturbation, or “self-gratification,” is so natural for them, and so easy to rationalize.
Masturbation—having sex with yourself—is the pinnacle of selfishness.
But the Lord can change a man’s heart, if he is willing, from a taker into a giver, from a man who lusts to a man who loves. Jesus’ words are compelling to this man, “A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35-36). Love is the opposite of lust. Love seeks pleasure for others at the expense of self.
If this conversion from “taker” to giver does not happen, that man will never walk in lasting victory over masturbation or sexual sin.
The fundamental question for all of us is who are we going to serve? Are we going to live to please ourselves or to please God? Are we going to be concerned with our desires or the needs of others? Are we going to be self-conscious or Christ-conscious and other-conscious? Are we complete and satisfied in Him, or are we not?
In his daily devotional My Utmost for His Highest, Oswald Chambers talks to this matter of self-awareness. “Ask the Lord to put awareness of Himself in you, and your self-awareness will disappear. Then He will be your all in all. Beware of allowing your self-awareness to continue, because slowly but surely it will awaken self-pity, and self-pity is satanic. Simply ask the Lord to give you Christ-awareness, and He will steady you until your completeness in Him is absolute.” (August 20)
Throughout my life, self-consciousness has always led me down the path of questioning God’s will and His Word, taking liberties that err on the side of allowing me what I want at the expense of what He wants. I was a “taker”
Many years ago, when the upscale Italian leather goods manufacturer, Gucci, swept into the market, they had a marketing motto in their stores, “If you have to ask the price, you’re in the wrong place.” Perhaps the analogy is imperfect, but if you’re asking questions like, Is masturbation sin? you just might be in the wrong place spiritually. You may not have yet entered into that place where serving God and loving others rules and reigns. (Maybe you haven’t been born again or perhaps you have but are quenching His Spirit)
It is in that place where true peace, joy and lasting victory are found.
You wrote a lot and I don’t have time to answer point-by-point, but consider this: you opened your comment by admitting that the Bible doesn’t speak on the topic. On that we agree. Do you have a verse that proves masturbation or fantasy is idolatry? If not, then be careful lest you wander into sin. As it is written:
And again:
Be very careful about calling something a sin if God hasn’t. I personally know one Christian who masturbates (it came up once) who is such a ‘giver’ that he needs to be reminded not to neglect his own life.
P.S. I have no idea if Jesus masturbated because the Bible doesn’t say. I wouldn’t be surprised either way.
Hey man! I love your articles and I think they’re some of the most well thought out and grounded studies on these topics. But I do think I have a very different understabding of Duet. 24. To me it seems like this is up to the man’s discretion, whether he’s offended by her actions or not, whether he finds favor with her or not. So to me I don’t see as clear of a line from this passage to a specific sin because there’s that element of subjectivity to it. The passage doesn’t say he must divorce her, just that he can.
Now I’ve come to the same conclusion about porn as a whole (DEFINITELY wrong!) but I don’t know if this one verse is as convincing to me personally. The way I think about it is nowhere in the Bible does God condone extra marital sex, and everywhere that marital sex occurs it is praised. So setting your mind on illicit intercourse is definitely sin, as you expertly covered in the segments on fantasizing. Furthermore there’s plenty of VERY strong warnings against lust, and if literal porn viewing doesn’t fit the criteria of lust I don’t know what would!
Just my two cents, would love to hear your thoughts.
(Also sorry for the typos. Typed that up on my phone. I meant *understanding, and *Deut.)
Thank you for the kind words, and don’t worry about the typos; you should see my articles before proofreading!
I completely agree that the man isn’t required to divorce his wife; I agree 100%. I’m actually working on an article on the biblical reasons for divorce and make that point clear there, though unfortunately not here. I might make a small edit to correct that oversight. That said, the fact that it *can* be a legitimate reason for a divorce to me says it’s clearly a sin. A judge might choose not to punish a crime, but that doesn’t make the crime less of a crime. Likewise, a husband might choose not to divorce his wife for lewd exposure, but that doesn’t make the lewd exposure less of a sin.
(As an aside, there is no Greek word that means “lust” in the sense of inappropriate sexual desire. The word that’s usually translated “lust” (ἐπιθυμέω/epithumeó) simply means a strong desire for something, whether good or bad. Jesus had epithumeó for something in Luke 22:15. As I’m translating through the New Testament, I usually render it “yearning” or “longing” in the positive sense, or “craving” in a negative sense.)
Regarding Deuteronomy 24:1, Jesus pretty clearly agrees with your view that it is not discussing adultery, as shown in Matthew 19:3-9. He confirms that it’s not referring to anything under the umbrella of “sexual immorality”, which does not necessarily mean that it cannot be indecent exposure, since it seems that word is for immoral sexual intercourse, and doesn’t consider other potential immoralities.
But then I’m confused. If I understand correctly, Jesus says that a man should not divorce his wife for these other reasons. The only reason Moses permitted it in Deuteronomy 24:1 is that men’s hearts are hard. So I’m not sure it can be said to be a great sin that had occurred in order for this divorce to be considered. Or perhaps we’re just supposed to be more forgiving than we are? But then why aren’t we told to not divorce for sexual immorality?
And then I’m confused about something else. If it is a sin, then it requires blood, as far as I understand these things. No blood is talked about here. Therefore, if this is indeed referring to a sinful act, then it must be discussed elsewhere and payment details given. If that is the case, then Deuteronomy 24:1 cannot be used to determine what is sin, only how another may react to it (whether it is sin or not). And, given Matthew 19:3-9, it appears the permittance is rendered null and void.
On a different note, but the same passage in Deuteronomy, I noticed that the word translated “some” (in “some indecency”) seems to be strangely translated at this location. Most of its definitions have to do with “words” or “speaking”, and its usages often pertain to “things” and actions (such as “after these things”). Its usage here as “some” doesn’t make sense to me. But I’m not experienced enough at translation to call myself much more than an amateur, if even that. Is there a simple explanation for this?
I’m actually working on an article about divorce and the reasons for it right now. It’s not done yet, much less edited/proofread, but it will touch these topics. For now, I would suggest you read my article What Jesus Meant by Adultery in Matthew Chapters 5 & 19, because that article will give a lot more clarity on Jesus’ words. I hope to have my article on divorce published in the next week or two, and I’ll edit this comment with a link when I do.
EDIT: here’s the link: Biblical Reasons for Divorce, When Remarriage is Allowed, and How Adultery Figures In
Once again, thank you for your hard work and insights.
Your take on Deuteronomy 24:1 was something I had never heard before. So I looked at other commentaries and articles. Apparently the Jews were even divided on what it meant. I found one article compelling though that took a similar approach to yours except he also looked at the word before “ervah”. That word is “dabar” (Strongs: H1697) meaning speech, word, commandment. He then translated it to be, “The most obvious literal translation of “’ervat davar” would be, “nakedness of a word”, and an obvious meaning would be, “the nakedness (shame or dishonour) of one of God’s words (commandments)”…In the case of the wife about to be divorced for “some uncleanness in her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), it would mean that the husband had found “nakedness of a word in (or by/with) her”: something about her that was contrary to what God had spoken or commanded.” (You can read the entire analysis here: https://www.logosapostolic.org/bible_study/RP454-Deuteronomy-24-some-uncleanness.htm)
This combined with Raphael’s comments about Noah and his sons, I think diminishes the strength of the argument. Personally, I think the stronger argument is Rom. 1:29-32, where fornicators are listed among sinners, but then 32 condemns the approval (Strongs: G4909) of such things. This is my go to for christian “allies” of the LGBTQ movement, but I think applies to viewing pornography as well.
As for things like SI Swimsuit edition and Instagram models, I think verses addressing “Lasciviousness/debauchery/wantonness” might be effective. I have not gotten to research that term much yet.
I do a more thorough treatment of that Deuteronomy passage in my recently published article on Divorce and remarriage. The word “dabar” does mean word, but often refers to a report of something, and is used that way. So “report of nakedness”, would be a very literal way to translate that. I might need to edit the article to include that tidbit, as it’s not the first time it’s come up.
To that link, “nakedness of a word” is a completely nonsensical way to translate that. Remember that Hebrew is a “word poor” language, with overall fairly few words, so each word has a lot of connected meanings.
The author of that website also has a very unbiblical view of divorce. He doesn’t even allow divorce for adultery, and his knowledge of Greek is… lacking. (To put it mildly and very politely.) He also seems to ignore several passages. I recommend you look at my article on divorce, because his position on divorce is simply uniformed, about both Greek and some relevant passages. (God actually included an “automatic divorce” in the OT law, which he ignores, details in my article on the topic.) I would also recommend my article: What Jesus Meant by Adultery in Matthew Chapters 5 & 19, since he clearly misunderstands those passages as well.
Greetings and thank you for writing this insightful article. Would you consider writing a similar one from a female perspective? I have been baptised in the past year and am ridding sin from my life. I have fantasies – 90% of the time I fantasise about the right man asking me to marry him, occasional thoughts of the wedding night slip in… I understand that it’s a moral fantasy because I so wish to be married – however the person I’m fantasising about marrying is a real (unmarried) man. Am I coveting?
The Bible says a man who wants to have sex should find a wife but what about us women… we have to wait to be asked…. and wait and wait… 😔
Fantasizing about a real person gets dicey quickly, just like I said in the article. I would try to keep fantasies to imagined people as much as possible. (and yes I understand that can be hard)
I do have one suggestion about your nickname (Waiting Patiently) and your final sentence. Perhaps read the book of Ruth and see what she did when she wanted someone to marry her. She didn’t exactly wait around hoping; she took action. If you have someone in mind, perhaps consider Ruth’s example and make your interest known in a clear but non-pressuring way. For example (off the top of my head) you could say: “If you asked me out on a date, I wouldn’t say no.” That’s clear, direct, and makes your interest known without pressuring. Pray about it first and make sure he’s a decent guy, but why not?
Im assuming that animated pornography with made up women is allowed in this case? This makes it fantasy, right?
So would that make like animated or comic porn alright? Because they’re as you said not real so I’m guessing watching and masturbating to that would be alright then? Pls respond.
I realize that you want me to say “Sure, that’s totally fine and enjoy“, but I’m not going to. Here’s a good question: does it pass the Philippians 4:8 test? I’m not going to say it’s okay, though it’s harder to pin down a verse that specifically says it isn’t.
So after looking at Philippians 4:8, wouldn’t that mean that masturbation or even fantasies a sin, since it doesn’t pass the Philippians 4:8 test because masturbation nor fantasy is neither good nor noble. Thank you for your response.
I spent rather a lot of time on that in the article, you might want to re-read it.
I have re-read this article multiple times, while it may be true that there isn’t a specific Bible verse that’s says masturbating is a sin, not everything single thing that God doesn’t want us to do will be written in the Bible, like where in the Bible does it say that driving past a red light is a sin, or that smoking crack is a sin? It doesn’t say anything, yet we still know it’s bad and it’s a sin.
Driving through a red light is covered under obeying governmental authorities. Crack is likewise covered the various commands not to be a drunkard. (drugs fit into the same category of addiction). Plus, there’s actually references to the abuse of drugs if you look at the nuances of meaning of a Greek word that’s translated “sorcery” a few times in the New Testament.
Please be very careful calling something a sin if you don’t have a solid Biblical justification for doing so. Where scripture isn’t clear, I suggest making an appeal to wisdom instead of insisting that something is wrong when God hasn’t called it wrong.
Masturbating is a sin because masturbating includes lust, and we already know that lust itself is a sin combined with masturbation which makes masturbating a sin. And you probably might mention that lust isn’t a sin if you don’t covet a married woman, but I think you’re somewhat twisting the words of Jesus. In Matthew 5:28 he specifically says : “whoever looks at a woman with lust, has already committed adultery with her in his heart”. The state of the woman isn’t stated it just says woman not married woman, and covet and lust are pretty much the same thing. Just a little reminder that we shouldn’t lean on our own understanding, we must only lean on the understanding of God.
What Jesus actually said was:
“The word translated “adultery” there requires a married woman’s involvement according to every lexicon I’ve ever seen, so God did say “married woman”. Please read my article on the topic for more information.
If you are going to say that lust and desire are the same thing, then you should be consistent and translate Luke 22:15 as follows because the same word is used:
Lust and desire aren’t the same thing. I desire the well-being of my family, but I don’t lust after their well-being. Words have meaning and God chose His carefully. Please educate yourself on a Greek word before you insist on what that Greek word means.
It looks as if you’re trying to defend lust here, so what I’m getting here is that you’re saying that lusting after any girl who isn’t married is totally fine, and you can just masturbate all you want? Let me ask you the same question you asked me, does masturbating and lusting after girls pass the Philippians 4:8 test? Because I’m not so sure about you, but I personally don’t think that lusting nor masturbating is neither praiseworthy nor pure. Masturbating is a selfish sexual act of pleasing one’s self, which falls into the sin category of sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is the engagements of sexual acts OUTSIDE THE SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE. It says that you must flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Corinthians 6:18-20). And about the adultery part, adultery indeed does need to happen with one of the two being married, whether the man is married or the woman is married, but if neither are married then it would be fornication which is still a sin.
I’m not defending lust; that’s a mischaracterization of what I said.
I said you are trying to make the Bible (which wasn’t written in English) say something it doesn’t say. Please realize that Greek has no word that’s equal to our word “lust” in the sense of “bad/wrong sexual desire for something”. They have a word which means “strong desire for something”, but it could be for something either good or bad. “Lust” is a poor translation of the original Greek; “longing”, “yearning”, or “craving” would be better. Every time you see “lust” in your English Bible, replace it with one of those words and you’ll have a more accurate sense of what God inspired (instead of what man translated). See my article: Why “Lusting” in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn’t Make All Men Adulterers
It’s the same with “sexual immorality”. You are adding English ideas onto Greek words. The Greek word primarily means: “fornication”, which to the Greeks meant an unmarried woman having sex with a man (whether he was married or not). I go into great detail about the meaning of this word in my article: Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong, and I suggest you read it. Nowhere does the GREEK even come close to affecting masturbation. English maybe, but God inspired in Greek, not English.
English adultery occurs when either spouse of a monogamous couple has sex with a person who isn’t his or her spouse. But that’s not Biblical adultery. Biblical adultery is when a man has sex with another man’s wife. A married man having sex with an unmarried woman is incredibly wrong and will be judged (Heb 13:4), but it isn’t Biblical adultery. See my article What Jesus Meant by Adultery in Matthew Chapters 5 & 19 for the evidence of this.
But you still didn’t answer if all of this passes the Philippians 4:8 test, I want to know what you think.
I did answer it in the article. In fact, I spent several hundred words on Philippians 4:8 specifically. Try starting at the heading “honorable things” (the table of contents before the first heading will allow you jump to it.) Long story short, fantasizing about noble/honorable things is allowed and even encouraged by Phil 4:8. Sex inside of marriage is noble/honorable (Heb 13:4), therefore, I don’t see the problem. Obviously sex outside of marriage is sin, and thus not noble/honorable, and thus would fail the Phil 4:8 test.
– Fantasizing about moral things = moral/fine
– Fantasizing about immoral things = immoral/sin
So I’m probably guessing even though hentai isn’t real and all of its made up it’s still a sin. But it’s not real, and I’m only technically looking at drawings.
Though of course porn with real people is a sin, but I just don’t see how stuff like hentai is, the Bible doesn’t say anything about looking at nude pictures as a sin.
There a two things that you should know, lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes.
Lust is a sin because it is a non-familial sexual desire. Lust may lead to sins like pre/extra marital sex and adultery, which may lead to fragmented family units or family units outside the norms of what makes a good Christian family unit. Lust is also a selfish notion, which even outside the Christian paradigm is not a highly desirable trait.
Masturbation is a sin because it is a non-productive sexual activity that also involves lust, which is another sin. Masturbation does not produce family units, or may create a fragmented or weak family unit due to personal withdrawal. The consequences of lust also apply.
We cannot outsmart the bible. Hentai falls under the Lust of the Eyes and Lust of the Flesh. You are giving your body (flesh) what it wants instead of denying your body to glorify the Lord Christ Jesus. And you are allowing very pleasantly seducing images to “seduce” your heart away from the Lord God. I hope this answers your question
What about pornography on a fictional character? Is masterbating over that a sin? It’s not a real person so we’re not lusting over it (unless it becomes an addiction). Just curious
Masturbation is wrong because it cannot be done without sexual lust which is sinful unless it’s with your spouse and you are married in such a way that is acceptable with the Lord.
Masturbation is also wrong because one is abusing the body that has been bought with a price, we are not our own…. the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ is not leading anybody to abuse their body.
The say masturbation is not wrong is actually a sin and is encouraging others to sin and as such is highly irresponsible to be telling Christians this is not a sin when it in fact is.
Those that are led by the Holy Spirit are the sons of God…. so one would have to believe sometimes the Holy Spirit is leading people to masturbate which is foolishness and has no basis in scripture.
I’d like to see some scripture references where the Lord is telling someone to go masturbate which is abusing what should be the Temple of the Holy Spirit.
I had a back-and-forth with another commenter (Jey, scroll up a little to read it) where we talked about this. The Biblical languages don’t even have a word that means “lust” like our English word. If you want to translate ἐπιθυμέω (epithumeó, the word that’s usually translated “lust”) consistently, the Jesus “lusted with lust” in Luke 22:15, or that someone who “lusts” to be an elder is doing a good thing in 1 Tim 3:1. The word simply means a strong desire for something, whether good or bad. Please articulate your position without using the word “lust”, and realize that what I just said is the meaning of the words translated lust.
Also, I’d really like to know how it abuses the body. In fact, there’s a fairly large body of evidence that says it’s healthy unless you overindulge.
If the Bible does not specifically mention anything about masturbation being wrong and because of this some think it’s not a sin….
What about snorting cocaine??? It’s not mentioned anywhere in the Bible and in places such as Seattle it has been de-criminalized so if one can make the argument that masturbation is not a sin because the Bible does not specifically forbid it
Why can’t we snort cocaine too as long as we are someplace that has de-criminalized the use of cocaine? Back before the 1930s, this was a popular thing to do you know, and some Christians may have engaged in using cocaine.
Just curious if one was going to say using cocaine was a sin, what specific scripture verses would be used to prove that it is a sin?
Nothing like a nice discussion on slippery slopes!
(I posted this because you know people out there are thinking it…)
By that logic, is driving a car wrong? Further, the Bible does touch on addictive drugs in more than one place. It mentions φαρμακεία (pharmakeia) as a sin, which was the use of drugs to induce mind-altering states. (Often translated “sorcery” because that was their primary negative use.) So yes, the Bible does speak to cocaine. Further, I’d argue that the various verses about drunkenness also apply because they are quite similar.
If you think someone can masturbate and not fantasize sexually about other people, you are fooling yourself and whether you know it or not satan is using your online teaching on this to convince people that sexual perversion is OK
It’s a sin to make others stumble so a mature Christian would not publish this position just to not led others in to sin, and this is exactly what your article is doing!
Jesus said to lust (sexual desire, sexual want) after a woman in one’s heart was a sin even though they had not physically had sex with her… this is the standard. Sexual sin is grievous before the Lord and those being led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ.,… are NOT being led by the Lord to masturbate.
Only those led by the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ are the sons of God. Nobody should take any of your teaching seriously considering the position you have claiming masturbation is not a sin as long as you keep it to around a couple times a week!
Are you going to make the case for transgenderism not being a sin too? Where does this slippery slope end??? If you believe in “once saved, always saved” then we can all sin all we want because that position believes we cannot fall away from the Lord and if we do commit grievous sin before the Lord, we’ll just lose a few rewards but still go to Heaven. This position comes from the Book of Speculations.
Actually, I’m pretty sure I said a person shouldn’t think about another person who they aren’t married to. Transgenderism is explicitly taught against, and you might want to at least read the title of my article Yes, The Bible CLEARLY Says Sex Outside of Marriage is Wrong before you accuse me of permitting sin. Again, about Jesus words on “lust”, see my article on the topic. Why “Lusting” in Matthew 5:27-28 Doesn’t Make All Men Adulterers
Additionally, you completely ignored everything I said about word meaning. Perhaps remember that the Bible wasn’t written in English, and the meaning of English words is trumped by the meaning of Greek/Hebrew words.
Are you interpreting the scripture at Deuteronomy 24:1 to mean that nudity in of itself, such as going to a nude beach, is unclean? Or, does this need to involve some kind of lewd behavior along with it? I personally do not believe that the nude human body is anything unclean or shameful, unless someone was behaving inappropriately.
Yes Knox it would probably be a sin
If you think someone can masturbate and not fantasize sexually about other people, you are fooling yourself. You said single men can fantasize about someone they are not married to… and you said yet, which still means they are not married to them.
This is fornication which is a sin
And, your position on “once saved, always saved”…. is what?
I must be fooling myself about things I’ve actually done then, and not just once, but many times in my youth.
Please stop mischaracterizing what I’ve said; it makes for poor discussion. Perhaps re-read the article before assuming I approve of things that I’ve explicitly said are wrong. I said single men can’t fantasize about women they aren’t married/betrothed to (and remember that betrothal = unconsumated marriage). From the article:
My position on “once saved always saved” is… complicated. Here’s the first article in a series I did about it: Universal Restoration vs. Eternal Torment (Hell) Introduction
There are some biblical principles that can be applied to the issue of masturbation:
(1) “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31). If we cannot give God glory for something, we should not do it.
(2) “Everything that does not come from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23). If we are not fully convinced that an activity is honoring to God, it is a sin.
(3) “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore, honor God with your body” (1 Corinthians 6:19–20). Our bodies have been redeemed and belong to God.
(4) “The fruit of the Spirit is . . . self-control” (Galatians 5:22–23). Masturbation is almost always a sign of a lack of self-control.
(5) Do “not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want“ (Galatians 5:16–17). We are called to self-denial, not to self-gratification.
These truths should have a powerful impact on what we do with our bodies. In light of these principles, it is doubtful that masturbation could ever be a God-honoring activity. If masturbation could be done with
• no lust in the heart
• no immoral thoughts
• no pornography
• no self-gratification of the flesh
• full assurance that it is good and right
• thanks given to God
Those qualifiers negate the very meaning and purpose of masturbation.
You did in fact say it was OK to participate in this sinful activity as long as it’s kept down to a couple times a week which is speculation on your part.
Okay, I think I agree with your points #1 and #2, depending on how you mean them. I fully agree with point #3. You lost me with your application of #4; more on that in a minute. I completely disagree with you application of point #5. I’ll look at that first.
When you see “flesh” in a spiritual context, the application isn’t necessarily the physical body. From a lexicon:
And I like Thayer’s take too:
Flesh is usually either (1) the physical flesh (1 John 4:2, that Jesus came “in the flesh”), or more commonly (2) refers to our sinful nature which craves what is contrary to God. (all of Galatians 5). Remember that while we look at another verse to answer your point #4, and it’s a verse that’s often ignored:
The self-denial that we are called to isn’t about “bodily denial”; it’s about sin denial. There’s nothing wrong with doing something that your physical flesh likes; there’s something VERY wrong with doing something that our sinful nature likes. Please don’t confuse the two. (That was the error that the gnostic heresies fell into; 1 Timothy has echoes of anti-gnostic teaching in many places.)
Now – coming back to masturbation in my next comment – can you agree with the paragraph just above this one? (with or without the parenthetical statement)
Thank you for the wonderful article! In concluding you said that porn was wrong because “In Deuteronomy 24:1, a woman exposing her “pudendum” or “external sexual organs” was cause for her husband to divorce her, meaning it was a serious sin.” There are a few problems with this view. One, this verse cannot be describing a sin because there is no blood sacrifice required for its remission (Heb 9:22 “…without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness). Also, I know some people don’t think that David was naked when he danced with all his might (2 Samuel 6:14) in public. But even if he was partially covered, he was nude enough that his wife, Michal, burned with anger towards him. And it didn’t turn out too well for her. Any thoughts?
You might want to check the account in 1 Chronicles 15, because it specifically states that David was clothed:
David was most definitely clothed. Further, Michal “saw King David leaping and celebrating; and she despised him in her heart.” (1 Chron 15:29). No mention of clothing levels because that wasn’t the issue.
To Hebrews, something doesn’t have to require a blood sacrifice to be a sin. (Coveting didn’t require a blood sacrifice and yet was part of the Ten Commandments.) That verse specifies that under the law blood had to be shed. That’s it. It doesn’t say that something had to have a blood sacrifice or it wasn’t a sin; again, coveting.
Would fantasing about the concept of a fictional man and woman having married sex with each other be a sin? I imagine it wouldn’t because you are taking pleasure in one of the holiest covenants. But
do you think it is a sin to masturbate while looking at a picture of unmarried woman (with clothes or in bikini), NOT thinking about having actual sex with her and NOT imagening her naked? Since I thought you said you can only covet something that is from someone else.
(while I’m single too)
Yeah, I won’t directly say that masturbation is a sin, but I will say, I don’t believe the Bible needs to say “thou shall not masturbate” for it to be a sin. Maybe, I doubt it, as you’ll see why, but maybe it isn’t a sin, but you’re almost definitely opening a door to greater temptation and possibly greater sin. The woman mentioning Uriah had some great points and I won’t say definitively, but I strongly believe masturbation would be going against our instruction to, Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, strength and love your neighbor as yourself, or however exactly it is worded. How is masturbation loving God or others? It appears to me, to be solely gratifying the desires of the flesh and we’re clearly told: “Walk by the Spirit and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.” The goal here very clearly is to walk by the Spirit and to NOT gratify the desires of the flesh. Jesus says you are for me or against me, you gather or scatter. Now if you have to put masturbation in either the category “walking by the Spirit” or “gratifying the desires of the flesh” I think it’s pretty plain which category masturbation falls under and it clearly doesn’t fall under loving God or your neighbor with all your heart either.
I was bound to gratifying the desires of my flesh for a very long time and was under the impression it would be impossible to just not masturbate unless I had a wife, and I thought it was just natural, but it’s only as natural as all the other things that came with the fall of man. I can tell you now, with much joy, by the grace of God, I’m not married and I do not masturbate, as it simply serves no purpose but to give in to fleshly desires. I tried going down that road and all it did was open the door to more temptation. This is just me and I’m not trying to add anything to God’s Word or command anyone else on what they should do, but I do suggest everyone meditate on what they think Jesus wants them to do. Ask yourself: “What kind of fruit does masturbation yield?” “Would I masturbate if Jesus was right here with me?” Because guess what, if you’re truly born again, Jesus is right there with you. And again, ask yourself “is this loving God and/or my neighbor with all my heart” OR “am I simply loving and pleasing myself?” Because you are either doing one or the other. Masturbation, I believe, is dangerous grounds of sin at the very least and I suggest anyone proceeding to do so pay very close attention to and meditate on what the Spirit of God is telling you because as we know, God’s Law is written on our hearts. Also consider the fact that any sin we have done multiple times may sear our conscience, which the Bible reveals is definitely possible. So if you’re masturbating, I suggest praying about this and meditating on if it’s truly pleasing to God, eager to accept any correction from the Spirit of Truth.
Never think overcoming fleshly desires is just too hard, because nothing is too hard for God. Never think giving into fleshly desires is just natural or okay because masturbation is NOT a substitute to sex in marriage, in fact, it’s the opposite in many ways: masturbation is pleasing one’s own flesh, sex in marriage, if doing it according to God’s Word, is being done with intent of multiplying, or at least by intent of making love to and pleasing your spouse and therefore pleasing self in the process. That is why these studies show sex to be so much more pleasing than masturbation.
I’ve found that, for me, true fulfilling satisfaction in life always comes from seeking to please another person and/or fulfilling another person’s needs, but when it comes to simply trying to please myself/live for myself (outside of normal self-care for the sake of my spiritual, mental, physical necessities) any found self-gratification is temporary, fleshly, unfruitful, and unfulfilling in nature. And it comes to no surprise when looking at what Jesus called the two greatest commandments. Does Jesus not say “Seek first the kingdom and all will be added?” Can we at least cover how masturbation is seeking first the kingdom of God? If we’re being honest with ourselves, living by the Spirit of Truth, I’m pretty sure we’ll all come to the same conclusion that masturbation is seeking first our own fleshly kingdom, as it’s going to have no place in God’s kingdom. Certainly marital sex won’t either, but pleasing others, which is one of the biblical reasons for having marital sex, is a part of God’s kingdom. HIS kingdom come, HIS will be done, on Earth, as it is in heaven. God bless.
Some more to consider since after reading your back and fourth with others, it seems like instead of answering to some people’s more sound points like some of Jenny’s, it seems like you decided to just blatantly ignore those better points and write off what you can with your interpretation and understanding of scripture, which is extensive, I’ll give you that. But you’re essentially saying, “as for answering to your other points, I have time to jerk it twice a week and go back and fourth with these other people, but not to answer to that.” Well, you don’t have to answer to Jenny or myself and that’s fine, but I’m taking the time to write this because I believe you mean well, but we know the heart is deceptive and wicked and we know know the letter kills but the Spirit gives life.
I hope you can understand how some may find justifying solely self-centered actions on the claim that the Bible does not directly condemn them specifically enough for you to understand and therefore stating plainly that it is not a sin for ANYONE to do, to be a… surprising stance to see a person in communion with the Holy Spirit to take. It seems to justify such a thing on these grounds then claiming that saying masturbation is sinful is to add to God’s Law when the Bible doesn’t directly say such a thing is interpreting scripture to one’s own convenience, going against one’s own logic.
It seems to me anyways, making these kind of absolute statements is essentially taking away from God’s Word, as you neglect to encourage people to read God’s Word for themselves, spend time in prayer, and stay sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is speaking to their hearts personally because we know if we are convicted of something, the Bible says it very well may be a sin for us regardless of what the Law says if the Holy Spirit convicts us and/or we’re living in self centeredness instead of selflessness. The Law is for lawbreakers, but a person born again goes by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, on the basis of love for God and others above love for self. If you made some case of how masturbation is acting in love for others according to the Bible, perhaps you would have a case, but I hope we can all admit how ridiculous that sounds.
Anytime you are using your own interpretation of scripture as means of justifying other people’s actions, it seems like you risk taking away from the ministry of the Holy Spirit and minister religion apart from relationship. I’d would see no reason to warn you if you simply put a disclaimer at the beginning or end of the article, “this is my interpretation of what scripture says about masturbation from my understanding but read scripture for yourself and stay sensitive to what the Holy Spirit is ministering to you personally as you read the Word and pray.” But what you are saying essentially is “The Bible doesn’t directly condemn masturbation because this word actually means this and that word actually means that, therefore we can all masturbate, just everything in moderation when living for yourself. Have fun.”
Just because you’re not condemning something doesn’t mean this isn’t a totally legalistic approach; it most definitely seems to be. This article is having nothing to do with relationship with God and everything to do with relationship with the letters of the Bible, making it totally impersonal and insincere and leaving no room for the ministry of the Holy Spirit that I can find, but clearly from the comments, it’s left people who were on the fence about masturbation satisfied to accept your ministry over what the Holy Spirit may or may not have been trying to tell them. It seems a lot like you’re interpreting God’s Word like a lawyer, but though we are ministers and help people come into relationship with God via the scriptures, we are no person’s advocate; the Holy Spirit is our Advocate.
I believe we should be teaching people our understanding, but not apart from how to let Holy Spirit minister to us through the Word, encouraging keeping love for God and others at the highest priority of all commands, just as Jesus taught. If we aren’t doing this, we’re pointing people to our ministry, not God’s. Our ministry should be guiding people in how receive ministry from the Good Shepherd Himself in truth. If we don’t, we’re teaching religion apart from relationship, lifting up our ministry over God’s and having legalistic principles instead of relationship with the Most High God, who gave His everything on Earth for us and told us to follow Him and abide in Him to bear the fruits of love, joy, peace, patience, self-control, and perseverance.
“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.”
Titus 2:11-14 ESV
Passions- Cognate: 1939 epithymía (from 1909 /epí, “focused on” and 2372 /thymós, “passionate desire”) – properly, passion built on strong feelings (urges). These can be positive or negative, depending on whether the desire is inspired by faith (God’s inbirthed persuasion). See 1937 (epithymeō).
Do you REALLY think it’s God persuading you to masturbate???
It’s very plain: if our passion is inspired by faith, it is good; if our passion is inspired by worldly desires, God’s grace should be teaching us to renounce it, IF we are welcoming God’s grace. If grace is not teaching you to renounce worldly passions, and instead you’re searching God’s Word for loopholes, my encouragement would be to pursue the Lord in prayer, ask forgiveness, mercy, and grace, and start seeking His face over your own worldly passions and desires before you go teaching others to pursue their worldly passions over godliness. These two things go against one another, just as Galatians plainly states. You can explain away all you’d like but it’s really very plain. You do not need to be a biblical scholar to follow Christ. In fact, the track record these learned scholars have in God’s Word is not good and this is an excellent example of why.
And you want to accuse of adding to God’s Word? I cannot see where the Bible says it’s okay to pursue your worldly passions as long as it’s only twice a week either, yet this is what you teach. I urge you, cling to the Spirit of Truth, not your own earthly understanding of scripture. We can interpret the Bible to say so many things it doesn’t say and Satan is the master at this. That’s why we need the Holy Spirit; to ask “whose will am I pursuing? is this passion coming from faith or flesh? is this passion earthly or heavenly?”
The Bible says that people will be inventing new ways to sin, so of course every sin will not be specifically listed in the Bible. Again, it comes down to: “am I living for Christ or self?” It’s really simple actually and it is not in the least bit burdensome to follow Christ in this way. On the contrary, it produces greater joy and closer relationship with God the more we let His grace work in us to transform us to be more like Him and less like animals.
Immediate gratification of the flesh is just that: immediate and it’s gone as fast as it came; it yields absolutely zero good fruit and only leads to more earthly passion and desire, as Proverbs plainly states. The joy that the grace of God produces is steadfast in nature for as long as we hold fast to it, cherish it, and let it work in us by submitting to and holding fast to it, but giving in to our worldly passions only hinders grace from doing it’s perfect work in us.
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.”
Colossians 2:20-23 ESV
This is a perfect example of why the Holy Spirit is needed to interpret scripture. As you read the first part you might say “oh, saying don’t do this, don’t do that is legalistic!” And that’s exactly right. Making rules based on action is shallow. We don’t make rules based on actions; we renew our minds to renew our INTENTIONS, which is the root of our actions. That’s why the next thing Paul writes is: “If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”
Colossians 3:1-5 ESV
You can explain away with your Greek definitions of these words, but it comes down to the first few verses, is your mind set on things above or on earthly things? Come on… you don’t need to be a scholar or know Greek to figure that out.
God bless everyone and may God keep you as keep your mind on things above, letting God have His way with you, which will bring you abundantly more joy and far more abundant life than having your own way.
So you can’t fantasize about your crush / fiancé? That’s impossible. What teen is going to know that it’s okay to fantasize about a fictitious person but not their crush / girlfriend? It’s totally normal to have sexual desire for others, as long as it’s not a desire for sexual sin.
don’t you think lusting after fictitious women falls under “the lust of the eyes?”
and don’t you think proverbs 23:33 is about looking with lustful intent at women?
To your previous comment, anything that you can see that a person covets — and check the article for the definition of covet — could qualify as the “craving of the eyes” (There is no Greek word that means “lust”). However, I don’t see how it would apply to a fictitious person since I’m not sure it’s possible to covet something that doesn’t exist. I’ll admit there’s a bit of uncertainty there, but that’s a really huge stretch of 1 John 2:16 to declare something a sin.
To Proverbs 23:33, it’s clearly about drunkenness. Start reading at verse 31 and you’ll see that.
If you admit there’s a bit of uncertainty there, while you also agree with that if we are not fully convinced something is not a sin, we shouldn’t do it (Romans 14:23), you’ve already ruled out lusting after fictitious women atleast for yourself since you think there’s a bit of uncertainty there, and I don’t think if there’s uncertainty about something you should tell people it’s (probably) okay. But I do have a question about coveting though. I thought you said coveting isn’t wrong per definition but only if u covet something that belongs to someone else. So how would you apply that to unmarried real women. If you scroll a bit up you see a question from me: “do you think it is a sin to masturbate while looking at a picture of unmarried woman (with clothes or in bikini), NOT thinking about having actual sex with her and NOT imagening her naked? Since I thought you said you can only covet something that is from someone else.”
And to your response about Proverbs 23:33, I know it is but, “Thine eyes shall behold strange women, and thine heart shall utter perverse things.” Knowing the context you see that looking at strange women is bad I think.
and do u think lusting after real women falls under the lust of the eyes? idk because if everything u can see that a person covets qualifies as the lust of the eyes, that would mean that craving to see your own wife comes from the world, which i dont think is the case.
Again, the issue isn’t necessarily “lust” (since again there’s no Greek word for “lust”), but rather coveting. Coveting is always a problem, but you can’t covet your wife because she already belongs to you.
To proverbs 23:33, I think the intent is more a man is more likely to do stupid and/or wicked things while drunk, like sleeping with “strange women”.
When I said uncertainty, I meant as it applied to a fictitious woman and if it was even possible to covet a fictitious woman. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear. To your question, I devoted rather a large chunk of the article to that topic: see under the heading: “Fantasy about a real/specific woman”.
but what i dont understand is, how can u covet a someone that isnt married, since coveting is to desire to take away something or someone that belongs to someone else. who is the “someone else” if she isnt married?
Her father for a woman who has never married. I suggest you read this article, which is the 5th in my series on marriage; it explains it fully. Fair warning, it’s pretty counter-cultural.
So I have some problems with you’re view of deuteronomy 24.
First to see someone Ervah it means to have sex with them or literally see them naked. Which is quite Cleary not a reason to divorce you’re lawfully wedded wife. But thankfully Ervah has a more figurative meaning which means that person having some sort of moral fault. But it also as the secondary meaning of seeing someone’s moral faults a meaning that I think makes more sense in context .
Also you misunderstood what Ham did he simply did not see his father naked. He committed a act of incest with this own mother. In Leviticus having sex with a male relatives wife is described has uncovering the nakedness of said male relative not the women. Michael Hesier did a video on this topic which I would recommend you watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKCaa21lNqI
I’m well aware of is interpretation, but it’s so blatantly counter to the text that I didn’t think it worth mentioning. First, gen 9:21 specifically states that Noah uncovered himself. So it seems clear that Ham saw his father, not slept with his mother. Further, that video gets the idiom wrong. The idiom is “uncover nakedness”, not “see nakedness”. The verses he used to try and say it means “see” also include the phrase “uncover”. It’s quite poor exegesis. There’s a whole host of other problems with this view too, but I’d rather not write another article in the comments section.
To preface I am no scholar of Hebrew but I think the incest interpretation makes more sense in general. Cursing a man’s offspring children because he walked in some one while they were naked. Seems rather extreme and kinda ridiculous to me. But the curse being brought up on a degenerate unnatural blood line makes more sense to me.
Except that makes no sense since the Bible is pretty explicit that Noah uttered the curse when he “awoke from his wine”. So when he sobered up later that day or possibly the next, that’s when he pronounced the curse on Canaan. For that to be possible, Canaan must’ve already been born. He couldn’t be the result of incest because he was born at this point.
Again, this view has too many large holes to seriously consider.
You said: “Her father for a woman who has never married. I suggest you read this article, which is the 5th in my series on marriage; it explains it fully. Fair warning, it’s pretty counter-cultural.” There is a problem with this view though, because the desire to have a women that’s owned by her father is atleast most of the time the start of a marriage, why would you marry someone you don’t desire to have? If you marry a women, you take her from her father by definition and I don’t think that can be a sin. So I don’t think covetting an unmarried women is a sin by definition.
I’m not sure you understand “coveting” if you think it can ever not be a sin. There’s a difference between coveting and someone else having something that you want and you attempting to acquire it in a moral manner. So if I wanted to marry a man’s daughter, there’s a process for that and it’s not coveting to want to marry her. (or at least it doesn’t have to be). There’s a difference between legitimately wanting to acquire an unmarried woman as a wife and coveting her, or at least there can be. The difference is wanting to take her away from her rightful owner, vs legitimately wanting to acquire her as a wife. The two aren’t necessarily the same thing.
oh I understand it now I think, thanks. So the difference is that with covetting, you actually steal her since she still is rightfully owned by someone else and she still is while you posess her?
u said: “Now, if you have married her, then you can’t “covet” what you already have: the right to access her sexually.” But is masturbating while looking at a bikini picture (without imagining her naked and thinking about having sex with her) a sin? Because you don’t think about sexual activities with her involved, you just see her body in bikini. I don’t know if it’s really fantasizing about sex before marriage.
That’s quite the line you’re trying to straddle there. I’m doubtful that it’s possible and I certainly wouldn’t recommend it.
i wont do it eitherway since im not sure if it’s sin so then it’s already for sure sin if i do it
because of Romans 14:23
According to you masturbating to hentai will be okay
I would HIGHLY doubt you could ever find any hentai porn that would pass the Philippians 4:8 test.
Wouldn’t hentai pass the Philippians 4:8 test? Because Philippians 4:8 says: “Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.” It says think as in fantasize, and watching hentai isn’t fantasizing because your looking at the actually thing. So would hentai technically pass the test because it’s not your not even fantasizing in the first place.
Hentai would pass the test because there are no real persons.
Besides, what’s the difference between fantasizing about an imaginary woman and seeing an imaginary woman on the screen?
Every fantasy is based on women you’ve seen. No one fantasizes about a person with no face. However there might be a difference between fantasizing about your crush or girlfriend vs. watching real porn, because it doesn’t make them expose themselves.
So then, hentai is about sex between two people who are married to each other? Again, I said fantasizing about moral situations is okay, (whether sexual or not) but fantasizing about immoral situations is not. Again, fantasizing about a crush or girlfriend is treading on somewhat dangerous ground.
what do you think of this site? https://porntothegloryofgod.com/
He says it’s perfectly okay to use porn because women are made as ‘sex objects’ for men.
Even assuming that women are “sex objects for men” — a position that I definitely do NOT hold — that still wouldn’t change anything I said in this article about nakedness.
Thank you for leaving your reply to this article, Jenny P. The truth in your words spoke to me and I hope more people read your reply.
Fantasizing about a crush/girlfriend is dangerous? What are you taking about? It’s perfectly normal to have sexual thoughts before you’re married. You think we just automatically turn sexual when we get married? Of course not. That’s not how we’re designed.
Do you really think teens need to be taught to fantasize about imaginary people? They will naturally fantasize about those they like.
How do think people even get married if they never had a single sexual thought about that person? Like if a crush/girlfriend/fiancé doesn’t dream about the potential wedding night or sexual situations something is wrong with them biologically.
Sounds like a perfect application of 1 Cor 10:5
Natural doesn’t necessarily mean good or right. Hate is pretty natural, as are jealousy, outbursts of anger, and the rest of the works fo the flesh listed in Galatians 5.
Also check out Song of Songs 6:13 – 7:9 It is usually attributed to the lover, but it’s the actually the onlookers who desire to see her and they describe her. (see ‘The Song of Solomon’ by G. Lloyd Carr)
That would seem to be flatly contradicted by the text since the singular – not plural, but singular – possessive “my” is used to describe her in both 6 and 7. Onlookers want to see her in the first half of 6:13, but the second half of 6:13 rebukes those who want to see her (who aren’t her betrothed/husband) saying “Why should you behold the Shulammite”.
You might not view women as objects, but men in those days did, especially with regard to concubines.
David accumulated wives and concubines like one accumulates property.
Solomon had 300 concubines, which he obviously did not need.
Rehoboam had 18 wives and 60 concubines. (2 chronicles 11:21)
Kings kept harems for pleasure. They were just playboys. (Ecclesiastes 2:8, Song of Songs 6:8)
Based on the behavior of these men, we see their concubines were basically sex toys and incubators. They were not wives.
Hammurabi says:
[144] “If a man take a wife and this woman give her husband a maid-servant, and she bear him children, but this man wishes to take another wife, this shall not be permitted to him; he shall not take a second wife.” (clearly, the reference to a second wife shows that the concubine is not a wife).
Men did a lot of things in those days which aren’t right or good, should we imitate those things as well? Just because something was done doesn’t mean it should be done.
It should also be noted that the biblical definition of a concubine is a wife who’s also a slave. In Judges 19, a man takes a concubine and in verses 4, 7, and 9, the concubine’s father is called the man’s father-in-law. They were definitely married. Further, Abraham takes Keturah as a wife in Genesis 25:1, yet Keturah is also called a concubine in 1 Chronicles 1:32. Biblical concubines are married, possibly unlike their secular counterparts.
But if they could have many women for pleasure and not sin, why can’t we do the same? Isn’t this similar to one of the arguments for polygyny? Did God overlook harems?
Anyway, the Judges 19 concubine was given my the man to be gang raped. Would the same happen if she was a normal wife?
Well, since you asked… Is Polygamy (Polygyny) Biblical? Does God Allow it? (my article on the topic)
I don’t know if he would’ve done that to a “normal” wife, but she was a wife.
Hi, thanks for the work. A few thoughts:
1) You wrote: “Ham is Noah’s youngest son”
Correct my if I’m wrong, but I conclude from Gen06:10 he is mentioned second that he was in fact born second having a younger brother: Jafet
2) what do you think about manga where characters tend to have cats ears/ animal tails etc. I believe it should count as “unnatural” fantasy and should not be used since it’s sin to have intercourse with animals so lusting for something similar?
3) Urias wife bathed and was seen. We don’t know if David was intentionally looking around for bathing women so let’s just not accuse him and say he unintentionally happened to see her. Neither do we know if Urias wife intended to show her bare body, so let’s not accuse her and say she wasn’t showing on purpose. It does happen even without evil intent, a mother might breastfeed her baby and we happen to see her breast, a dress might slip and we happen to see more than we intended. It’s a big challenge and I was really blessed by reading the topic especially how Sem and Jafet acted wisely. This helped me today in the city when I saw some cleavage where in the past I would be forced strongly to look again more but I could stop the lust of the eyes and felt so pure. I wanted to share this:) Thanks
I would avoid the porn/masturbation all together. Seek God and his righteousness and all things will be added to you. It’s better for a young man to focus on their relationship with God. God willing – receive the gift of the Holy Spirit for our faith in his Son – Lord Jesus Christ. It then becomes God’s will how things work out. If a decent (no one is good but God / we are all in-worthy servants and sinners), Christian, by the grace of God, is blessed with extra wealth; then I would venture out to say it’d be more honorable to use that extra wealth to accumulate extra wives (following guidelines set forth by God), instead of using that wealth For self pleasure or self-worth (a person with the Holy Spirit does not seek praise from men but God). For example – sports cars, expensive jewelry, expensive clothing (Gucci), etc. But use that wealth to add extra wives and be fruitful and multiply. Therefore build up a strong family unit with children that follow the LORD and his only begotten Son. This is Illegal in all states but not if you do a commitment ceremony (marriage without the paperwork. Give ceaser what is Ceaser’s. Give God what is God’s).
Also, I would argue against that it’s considered coveting a woman if she is single (never married either). Why? Because Jacob found Rachel beautiful. But he didn’t allow his heart to sin against the Most High God, because from Scripture there is zero mention he sinned with her before marriage. It’s possible he had a strong desire for her (even lusted), but it never took hold of him. Instead he made a deal with her dad, and eventually they married. The marriage bed was never defiled. A man having lust (burning desire as Paul writes) leads to good fruit through marriage. But that lust needs to be kept under control. That’s where self-control from the Holy Spirit comes in. You should not be fornicating.
Also it’s a sin to marry a woman based on sexual desire alone. She needs to know the LORD (be a Christian), and bear fruit of the Spirit.
Contrary to popular belief, there’s nothing wrong with nudity, and the Bible has no minimum clothing requirement. We shouldn’t be scared of the naked body and treat it as something bad.
Besides, how can fantasize sex when you don’t know what the naked body looks like?
You say we have to think about an imaginary women, but that’s baseless. Everyone, especially those who read it when it was written, thinks about the shullamite woman or the man having sex, not some imaginary people.
It’s totally fine to consume erotic media portraying non-sinful sexuality. It makes no sense to say written erotica like song if songs is okay while condemning a visual song of songs.
What will you say about visual erotica that doesn’t reveal the face? That’s basically the same as imagining imaginary people having sex. Even if the face is revealed it’s okay because you’ll imagine the shullamite woman with a face.
The author may indeed be accurate in his interpretation of what Scripture says (and what it doesn’t). However, as a practical matter I’ve yet to run into someone who walked as fine a line as the author suggests is possible who didn’t ultimately fall into some manner of sexual sin.
Sexual sin is particularly insidious–even as Christians we tend to create idols in our minds and desire that which God prohibits. Wisdom suggests to me that we want to stay as far away from the line as possible.
Good evening Sir
I would like to comment on your article about watching porn and what the Bible says about it if you dont mind.
One of your points about Deuteronomy 24:1 is that the word” indecency,uncleanness, ervah” should be translated as nakedness or even more detailed as somebody exposing their genitals, in this case a husbands woman doing so.
I disagree for the following reasons
1. The word ervah was in deed also used in Gen 9:22. But it is used in a similar context in Lev 18:6 and following verses as well.
Here also the Word is either speaking about exposed genitals or about sexual interaction. In any case, none off these verses mentioned include either a mans wife or any other female nor male not defined in these verses for that matter .Which to me means it is allowed as long as it is only the exposure of her genitals.
2. Now lets assume the word ervah is translated as “fornication” as some Bibles do in Deu 24:1, than the message would be quite clear. A man finds out that his woman had sex. Obviously not while they were married, that would be adultery, but maybe somebody someday comes into town and tells him that he knows her and that he had sex with her before she got married. That would be fornication. And that would than be the only reason for divorce according to Deu 24:1.
3. The option that he can get a divorce only because he sees her naked while she is exposing her genitals before him wouldnt make any sense either.
Using this chapter to show that The Word is prohibiting watching porn is very constructed
I just started to study your contributions and I do appreciate your work. Its good to see people study the truth without trying to change it.
Best Regards
Walter
Thank you for posting this I have been looking for this type of deep dive for awhile. And yet I still have questions. The biggest question for me is the separation between physical need and desire and the emotional need and desire attached to all things sexual. God obviously created the physical arousal need in us. That physical side to me is much like hunger. It is a real physiological process in our bodies. Much like hunger we must do something to take care of it. I have a hard time believing God would put that physical function in us and expect us to ignore it. So, much like eating it can be overdone but I think that is where the emotional part comes in. So the question is how can masturbation in of itself be wrong if it is the physical response to something God put in us? This is where the confusion lies. If taking care of that need is not wrong but the action is most universally done with some fantasy of the mind that involves another person where do we draw the line.
This article does a great job of explaining exactly what the Bible does and doesn’t say about masturbation, porn and fantasy. The article about adultery, covet and the actual meanings has me now rethinking a lot of my understanding about these topics. To find my believe about thinking it is not always actually adultery has me now examining much of how I was raised to consider almost all forms of sex except that between a married couple as wrong. After viewing Dennis Pragers explanation of covet. It seems intentionality is a big aspect of coveting. With that in mind the fantasy in the mind about other women then becomes questionable. If I think of another woman during masturbation yet never have any intention of acting on it nor do I have the intention to replace my wife with her I’m questioning if that is actually wrong.
Now to the emotional side. This is where the overdoing it comes in and where I think of sex being sinful if not following Gods dictates on sex. A little background on me is probably helpful here. Been married for 36 years, 13 years ago my wife got sick and since then sex has been difficult at best for her. She has tried to accommodate me but a few times a year is the best she can muster. As a result my physical needs are not being met by her but not her fault. But the emotional needs that come with being met by sex are also not being met.
Her emotional needs that are met by sex are also not being met. For me that has always been a huge part of my fantasy life is providing something that no one else can for my partner. So now the conflict comes when my wife no longer is a sexual being it is hard to fantasize about her.
This is such a difficult pull. I think Paul experienced the issue in Romans 7 when he spoke of the losing battle between spirit and flesh. What a wretched soul I am. I have come to the conclusion much like Paul. Until I meet my maker I will win some and lose some but I have to keep chasing Him til I see Him face to face.
I have much more but this is enough for now. Hoping to have some responses to this. Thanks
Hey, when small parts of boobs or ass are revealed, for example because of a bikini, do you think it’s already considered lewd exposure or nakedness according to the Bible?
Sir, what about being pure and impure when fantasizing non-real/ imaged women
I’m not quite sure what you mean by the question. Could you clarify?
Does a person who fantasized about naked random sexy women fictional characters or any fantasies that aroused him and masturbated to it already committed a sin? Because some people say you must be pure at heart not only physical… I’m confused.
Does it make a person impure if he does these kind of things?
I know that the answer already is YES! So there is no really way for Christians to ease the tension when it comes to flesh, I suppose?
Hi Berean Patriot,
Thank you very much for this incredibly insightful article. I mostly agree with everything you have written and I’m glad that a fellow brother in Christ has examined the bible with such a critical eye.
I do agree that porn is not moral (at least of real women) and that indecent exposure is a sin due to how it was grounds for divorce. I also agree that Christians should avoid porn. But my view is porn should be avoided not because looking at naked bodies is a sin, but because the woman may be married or belong to someone else.
If we look at the bible, looking at nakedness has never been stated definitively to be a sin. You quote Genesis 9:20 to justify this, but that’s not what it is saying on the context of the chapter. Ham was condemned not just for coming across the nakedness of his father, BUT ALSO for going to his brothers to tell them about it. Remember, the context of the chapter is that Noah had been drinking wine and becoming intoxicated which is a sin (Galatians 5:21, 1 Corinthians 6:10). Then he became naked which is indecent exposure BECAUSE he had been improperly drunk. Ham’s sin was not necessarily the viewing of Noah’s nakedness, but bringing shame to Noah by airing Noah’s dirty laundry to others (in other words becoming a reviler).
There are other instances of the bible where people are naked and God does not condemn others for it. Adam and his wife were naked and God did not condemn them for it (Genesis 2:25) until after they ate the fruit. God condemned them not for their nakedness, but for disobeying him, even becoming angry that they learned they were “naked” (Genesis 3:11). In Isaiah 20:2-4, the Lord tells Isaiah to walk naked and barefoot as a warning against Egypt, and Jesus himself sighted a naked man possessed with demons (Luke 8:27).
From the context of these verses it is clear that viewing nakedness itself is not a sin. Genesis 9:20 does not state that viewing someone else being naked is a sin. It is stating that Ham’s choice to not only view someone naked but also to draw attention to it is a sin. Therefore, Genesis 9:20 shouldn’t be used to talk about the subject of pornography.
Please let me know what your thoughts are. I am interested to see what you have to say, as I too, am pursuing the truth on the matter. I would say that when it comes to viewing pornography, it is a very grey area on whether it is a sin or not. You have strongly established that women creating pornography is a sin, but not necessarily that viewing pornography is a sin (if not used to covet another person’s wife and the pornography is immoral).
You have removed Jesus from his Judaism. Jewish purity laws are well studied from the talmud and midrash. The dead sea scrolls also give us insight into the pre-Christian era. e.g. lines 4-7 of 4Q272 describe impurity regulations and describes the purification rituals needed after contact with one who masturbates or thinks lustful thoughts. There are many such prohibitions against the practise, and they written as if the ‘wrongness’ were self evident.
To overturn that, one would have to show evidence of Jesus overturning basic judaic laws, and freeing his followers from the regulations around lustful thoughts. Maybe it can be done, but starting from the premise that Jesus the sinless jew was good with masturbation because it is not directly addressed is to deprive Jesus of his judaism.
Jesus routinely and deliberately defied the “tradition of the elders” and constantly acted contrary to what we would now call the Talmud and midrash. He did this constantly and berated the Pharisees for adding to the law via their traditions. Given that, why would we think that Jesus – God Himself – would automatically accept Jewish/man-made traditions? Thus, it being condemned in the Talmud and midrash has absolutely no weight at all. (If anything it counts against your argument because it’s adding to God’s law, which is condemned.)
Also in the Talmud has advice on which side of the street you should walk on to avoid demons. I say this merely to point out that while the Talmud can be helpful to learn what the Jews thought, it is also littered with silliness in some places. The Talmud isn’t scripture and there’s no reason whatsoever to automatically accept its teachings.
Being freed from the law through grace is one of the core teaching through the New Testament, how could anyone who reads it miss it?
Jesus did not practice “Judaism”, the pharisees got him crucified and developed a replacement religion over the centuries after. The Talmud was written long after Christ and is practiced by impostors who have no connection to the original Hebrews. To stay polite, it is absolute satanic filth and no less than a total perversion of the Law. To Berean Patriot, I’m appalled you would consider even calling it “helpful” despite the knowledge you have in all other topics. Which part of it is helpful exactly? The one that says Jesus is boiling in hell in his own excrement? The one that declares it okay to rob, cheat and kill non-Jews (or “cattle” as they call us)? How about “it’s okay to have sex with a less than nine years old child”? And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
https://theserapeum.com/the-babylonian-talmud-the-jews-most-unholy-book/
Sanhedrin 59a: To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.
Revelation 3:9: Behold, I will cause those of the synagogue of Satan, who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie — I will make them come and bow down at your feet, and make them know that I have loved you.
Imagine if you were expelled from one hundred and nine schools over a thousand thirty times in your childhood and said to your parents “it’s not my fault, I’m just being persecuted!”. The Bible is not just some book of the past, its story continues and leads right into the modern age where the murderers of Christ rule this world with their father the Devil.
A lack of clarity on my part. I edited my comment to this: “while the Talmud can be helpful to learn what the Jews thought“. It is useful for that (cultural context), though of course I wouldn’t consult it for theology or practice.
Glad to see your receptiveness, I wasn’t sure if you had any position on this topic and this kind of content I posted would be immediately removed on most of the internet today. Apart from that, your site has been an invaluable help in my life, I’m happy to see you’ve returned to write in your newest article. Can I ask if you already have plans concerning what you will write about next?
This is a weak argument that all porn in general is sin. It is doubly out of context.
First, the context is divorce. Period.
Second, the context of the singular word in question is a married woman, not all women.
I appreciate most of your thoughts, but this one seems in danger of adding to the law something it does not say. Picking out a single word and building a theology on it is never sound.
Insightful article.
However, sex between a man and a woman doesn’t automatically mean that it leads to ejaculation of semen. That is actually an assumption.
Leviticus 15:18
‘If a man lies with a woman so that there is a seminal emission, they shall both bathe in water and be unclean until evening.’
It’s clear that it was the seminal emission that triggered the state of uncleanliness, not the intercourse itself.
The idea of intercourse without emission of semen is actually a very ancient idea. People today call such an act with the term “karezza” or “coitus reservatus” (reserved embrace).
This page https://synergyexplorers.org/traditions/ has organized all the known records of such a practice since ancient times.
It’s fair to say that sex doesn’t always result in ejaculation. That’s the normal way it goes, but indeed you are correct it doesn’t always happen that way. My point was simply that becoming unclean because of ejaculation wasn’t a sin because sex with ejaculation is spoken of the same way. Thus, the passage was talking about ceremonial uncleanness, not a sin.
Yes, I was just pointing out the implied assumption about sex and ejaculation, and clarifying that in the context, it was clear that it was the emission of semen that rendered one unclean.
I agree with your point that ceremonial uncleanness does not equate to sin.
I think no matter what we say we need to know musturbation will always lead to addiction, it better to avoid it.
Some questions I have.
I might be a bit kooky, but in Romans 1, Paul says the reason homosexuality is bad is because they’ve exchanged natural use for the unnatural. It is possible that Paul
is paraphrasing what Greek culture thought was sexually impermissible (eg. Unnatural is something that is used outside it’s intended function) . Would it be crazy to say that if Paul said homosexuality is bad because it’s unnatural, it would then follow that masturbation is wrong? Masturbation was considered to be unnatural act in the culture at the time.
Here’s a a comment and thread on r/academicbiblical that goes over it in more detail:
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/phr9ag/comment/hbkyglh/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
It’s weird too, because the Song of Solomon has extremely implied non-procreative acts, which would go against common Greek notions of the time.
“Let marriage be held in honor by all, and let the marriage bed be kept undefiled; for God will judge fornicators and adulterers.” (Hebrews 13-4 NASV
You’ve said in the article marriage is honorable, and therefore, not sinful to meditate on sex inside of marriage. Are you sure masturbation doesn’t count as sex outside of marriage and would be considered dishonorable? If my previous I think doing something dishonorable (unnatural intercourse) wouldn’t exactly be permissible
forgive me if I’m adding silly philosophy to the Bible or acting like a Pharisee, I’m not trying to. I was really curious. I encourage others to do their own research. God Bless you.
“I’d love to double the length of this article explaining where this ungodly view that “sex is dirty” comes from”
Yes please.
So does everyone on here at least agree that it’s ok for a married man to masturbate about his wife if she’s ok with it?
Masturbation has existed for as long as humanity itself. Animals masturbate by instinct. So, if it is a sin, dishonorable, or unclean, why does the bible never address it? The answer is because masturbation only became a point of condemnation starting in 200 AD with Clement of Rome (about 80 years after the last New Testament books were written) which when large numbers of Pagans started converting to Christianity. Around that time, the Roman empire started twisting and using it as a form of social control. Politically, it this confers two advantages: it increases birth rates and thus long-term projection of power while giving more control to religious institutions over a man’s primal drive.
The bible does not condemn masturbation, nor does it condemn sexual fantasy towards virgins/non-betrothed woman. Masturbation and sex are two entirely different things. There are lots of bible verses on sex, but the mosaic law is completely silent on masturbation, and that should tell you all you need to know. So, can we say that since the Mosaic law said nothing about ice cream, we are now forbidden from ice cream?
Anon. I do not agree with your assessment. Please consider the following. If masturbation could be done with: 1. no lust in the heart. 2. no immoral thoughts. 3. no porno. 4. no self gratification of the flesh. 5. full assurance that it is good and right. 6. thanks given to God. ….then perhaps it would be okay. But these qualifiers seem to negate the very meaning and purpose of masturbating!
Brian B.
1. What is being condemned by the bible is “ἐπιθυμῆσαι”, not lust, which is more accurately translated to “coveting”.
2. Immorality as defined by the Bible is what we should stick to, not man-made added restrictions.
3. This I agree with, if the actors are married women.
4. That’s pretty vague, what do you define as self gratification of the flesh? In the old testament, the Lord allows his people to “drink and be merry”. This was gratifying their flesh correct? Was the Lord telling them to sin?
5. No arguments there.
6. Of course.
You forget the two most important rules: “Love your God with all your might and all your soul” and “Love your neighbor”. If an activity does not hurt God and does not hurt your neighbors and does not hurt yourself, and is also not stated to be a sin, then there is no harm in practicing it. Stating otherwise is adding to the word of God, which is in itself a grave sin.
Is there any difference between coveting over a woman vs coveting over the thought of a woman? I’ve heard a phrase outside of the Bible which is that “you aren’t in love with someone, you’re in love with the thought of someone”. In other words, could you possibly be coveting over a woman when in reality you are simply coveting over your thought regarding her? Where is the boundary/line being drawn regarding one’s imagination of someone or something/ vs the one’s imagination of the thought regarding someone or something?
Apologies for leaving a comment here instead of emailing, I’ve changed my mind
Hello, It’s me, Billy, who commented a lot on the pinned post.
I wanted to update you on my Cath/Ortho research in that I don’t think either of them have any biblical grounds to stand on due to their own organizations contradicting each other and picking and choosing what is traditional and what isn’t. Orthodox exists primarily because one guy went against the rest of the organized Counsels and there are a lot of disagreements over what counsels are ecumenical Catholicism places a higher standard on infallibility and contradict each other all the time. There’s obviously the weird relic stuff that happens in Cath as well (Precipice and Breast milk). Cath/Orth seem to just state agendas and try to support agendas rather than being consistent and I think it really hurts their credibility when they are not concerned about tradition.
Reason why I bring this up first is because Catholic and Ortodox tend to read meaning into scripture where there are none through allegory and can also be very finger waving when someone else gives their own interpretation that’s more accurate. The Cath/Orth will be like “No that isn’t the correct interpretation, it means something entirely else.” I can be very concerned with my own interpretation of the Bible and making sure I’m being accurate and not projecting my own meaning onto the text. A lot of Christian denominations tend to make stuff up and I don’t want to lead others astray with an incorrect interpretation, especially when it comes to controversial issues like sex and behaviors and actions that are okay to do vs not to do. I can also get anxious about what’s literal in the ‘Bible vs what isn’t (Books like Exodus have quite a bit of historical problems, and Genesis taken literally leads to scientific inaccuracy). I know that Catholic and orthodox are very likely to be inaccurate, but there’s a bit more I’m working through. Do you ever feel like this where you’re super anxious about being accurate to scripture that you feel like you may disobey God?
I do a lot of research into Bible topics to make sure I’m being almost 100% accurate in the things I do to make sure I’m being Biblical
Also, another question about lust. I believe only verse in scripture that could apply to masturbation toward wholesome fictional scenarios being sinful would be Matt 5:28. Jesus says whoever looks upon a women with lust intent has already committed adultery with her in their heart. I think Jesus is saying that looking upon a women wit lustful intent is a not good thing to do. So it’s really difficult for me to imagine desire toward made up women in your brain as something different from coveting someone in real life. Especially since a lot of the sermon on the mount is exaggerations of stuff in the Old Law that someone is guilty of if they think about it in their heart. (Like hating someone is equivalent to murdering someone). I think the more Christ like ting to do in regards to sex is to respect the other person and their choices for who they decide to be in marriage with and not do anything super sexual or desire toward them until marriage happens. Fantasizing about women is not something I think would fall under the category of not “looking on a woman wit lustful intent (or intense desire like how Biblehub and you state)”. Obviously, this doesn’t mean finding a woman attractive is sinful like you’ve said in your article, it’s just difficult for me to think oogling made up wives is different from oogling real women who you’re not married toward.
Apologies if I’m being repetitive or sounding crazy. I can be very detail oriented, so I can end up overthinking a lot of verses and look for tiny details. If you don’t mind me asking what is the argument that stating something that isn’t explicitly condemned in the Bible is sinful leads to social problems?
In regards to anti-natalism again, do you think it would be unbiblical to not have kids for environmental purposes? God said to be good stewards. Also, would it be sinful for a married couple to not bear kids and adopt to stop poverty and give aid needed to kids?