Lusting in one's heart

1. Regarding masturbation. I don’t approve or disapprove. From what I can tell, Scripture is silent on the issue, so I’m not going to condemn something as sin unless it falls under the condemnation of Scripture.

That doesn’t mean I commend it. It means that I have no firm opinion one way or the other.

2. What I do object to is an extrascriptural scrupulosity that is stricter than the Bible itself.

3 .I agree with Keener, Carson, and Guelich that Mt 5:28 is blended commentary on both the seventh and tenth commandments. On that interpretation, the issue is one of adulterous sexual covetousness.

Examples would include a married man covenanting a single woman, a single man coveting a married woman, or a husband coveting someone else’s wife or vice versa.

4. Keener notes that “Jewish men expected married Jewish women to wear head coverings to prevent lust (single women were exempt, since they needed to find a husband),” 187.

This suggests that singles were expected to sexually appealing to the opposite sex—within the bounds of modest attire—for purposes of attracting a mate.

5. There is a dispute over whether the construction involves lust on the part of the first party—A is lusting for B–(e.g. Nolland) or whether it involves A provoking B to lust (e.g. Carson, with Blomberg straddling the fence).

6. There’s a question of how to interpret the apparent silence of Scripture on the subject of masturbation. On the one hand, Scripture is very specific and even explicit about naming sexual sins. On the other hand, masturbation is extremely prevalent.

If masturbation is a sin, then it’s a little odd that Scripture would leave the believer guessing about its moral status.

7. At the risk of stating the obvious, while a sexual fantasy can facilitate masturbation, masturbation can involve a purely physical stimulus.

8. At the risk of stating the obvious, even where a sexual fantasy is involved, sexual fantasies don’t necessarily take married women or even living women as their object.

One could fantasize about a long dead movie star. Or one could fantasize about a generically beautiful woman.

If a teenage boy has a fantasy about, let us say, Rita Hayworth, it’s hard to see how that would qualify as adulterous covetous lust. He is single and she is dead. So it doesn’t involve an alienation of affection on one side or the other.

Again, I’m not saying that this is right or wrong. I’m simply discussing it within the framework of Mt 5:28.

9. At the risk of stating the obvious, the lack of an erotic outlet for single men in their sexual prime is, itself, a source of lust and sexual tension. In that context, masturbation is a way of releasing the pent up, psychological preoccupation with sex.

This may be good or bad, but if we’re going to frame the morality of the act in terms of lust, we need to keep in mind that the objection to masturbation as lustful actually cuts both ways.

10. At the risk of stating the obvious, how do we teach our kids about sex (whether homeschooling or private Christian education) without visuals of one sort of another? Since premarital sex is illicit, the only licit alternative is either diagrams or an active sexual imagination.

11. I’m discussing this from a male standpoint because that’s the point of reference in Mt 5:28, and because I’m in no position to speak for women.

12. Sorry if this discussion is a bit graphic, but there are unspoken assumptions in this debate that need to be discussed in a frank and open manner.

Apparently, there are sectors of the church which are still too squeamish to dive into the details, but the details are an essential element in the moral valuation of the act.

As I've said elsewhere:

i) Some theological traditions regard masturbation as intrinsically wrong. That's still common in Protestant ethics. That's a throwback to Catholic moral theology.

ii) Scripture has no specific prohibition against masturbation. Of course, it may still be immoral, based on general principles (which I'll consider momentarily). But given the near ubiquity of masturbation, if it's inherently sinful, I'd expect Scripture to be more definite. Scripture certainly doesn't hesitate to be very emphatic and explicit when it comes to sexual sin. So I think the silence of Scripture on this topic creates a certain presumption that it's not necessarily sinful. But there are, of course, other factors to take into consideration.

iii) Masturbation is often thought to violate the general principle laid down in Mt 5:28. Possibly so, but the inference isn't straightforward:

a) The traditional interpretation has always been problematic since heterosexual attraction is part of God's design for human nature. So at best it becomes a matter of degree rather than an absolute prohibition. 

b) John Frame defines "lust", not as sexual attraction, but forbidden desire. Although that's a good definition, it doesn't select for what's forbidden. To insist that masturbation is lustful in the forbidden sense is circular inasmuch as that's the very question at issue.

c) On a related note, critics condemn masturbation if that's linked to sexual fantasies. However, that simply pushes the issue back a step. Are sexual fantasies inherently sinful? Are all sexual fantasies sinful? To take a comparison, it would be hard to teach sex-ed without evoking the sexual imagination of the student. 

d) In addition, the question of lust cuts both ways. If a bachelor has no outlet for pent-up sexual impulses, then that's a source of lust. That preoccupies the mind. Masturbation can function as a "lust"-reducing safety value to lease excess pressure, which otherwise continues to build up. 

e) Then there's the question of whether the traditional interpretation is correct: 

Klaus Haacker (“Der Rechtsatz Jesu zum Thema Ehebruch,” BZ 21 [1977]: 113-16) has convincingly argued that the second auten (“[committed adultery] with her”) is contrary to the common interpretation of this verse. In Greek it is unnecessary, especially if the sin is entirely the man’s. But it is explainable if pros to epithymesai auten, commonly understood to mean “with a view to lusting for her,” is translated “so as to get her to lust” The evidence for this interpretation is strong (see Notes). The man is therefore looking at the woman with a view to enticing her to lust.

If Haacker (see above) is right in his contention that the second auten is unnecessary on the customary reading of this verse, the problem is resolved if the first auten within the expression pros to epithymesai auten functions as the accusative of reference (i.e., the quasisubject) of the infinite (as in the equivalent construction in Lk 18:1) to generate the translation “so that she lusts” REBC (Zondervan, 2nd ed., 2010), 9:184-85.

If the alternative rendering (“get her to lust after him”) is correct, then I take this to mean that what 5:28 really forbids is seduction, viz. a man seducing a woman. As such, the prohibition would presumably apply to both premarital and extramarital sex–since OT law condemned each form of immorality, although adultery was the graver offense. 

iv) Although debates over the morality of masturbation typically focus on males, there's a female equivalent that receives far less attention. 

v) In Catholic theology, masturbation is a sin, but there's a loophole since you can just confess it to a priest and receive absolution. 

vi) The upshot is that masturbation in moderation is probably permissible for bachelors, although it's not a solution to sexual impulses, and shouldn't become a substitute for marriage, when that's available.